Pretty Much Impossible Morally Problematic Situation

[Ziggamafu]

I don't know...it seems like what you guys are suggesting is that in order for a marriage to be valid (not subject to a future declaration of nullity) each spouse must give to each other a full, general confession of their past life. I'm not certain that this is actually Church teaching. Where is the line drawn?

Side-note: Common conceptions of marriage are a joke; my class on marriage and canon law left me with the conviction that 99% of all marriages (including those of friends and family) are in fact invalid and thus, examples of mere fornication. Sure explains the high divorce rate. No sacramental grace.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1869316' date='May 17 2009, 08:19 AM']I don't know...it seems like what you guys are suggesting is that in order for a marriage to be valid (not subject to a future declaration of nullity) each spouse must give to each other a full, general confession of their past life. I'm not certain that this is actually Church teaching. Where is the line drawn?[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
i'd like to know this as well.

[CatherineM]

I have heard many times, in moral theology, from priests at the tribunal, that you need to tell your prospective spouse that you have had previous sexual partners, but you should not go into great details because that leads to unnecessary burdens on your future spouse. The amount of detail depends on the length of your former relationship, and if there are any issues remaining like children or finances.

As an example, my husband had a former wife. Their relationship was annulled. The things I wanted to know, needed to know, was that he had been married, how long, what kind of issues led to their breakup, what were the grounds for annulment. I do not need to know the kinds of things they did in the bedroom, or any other private things about his first wife. I only need to know things from that relationship that might affect our relationship.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1869316' date='May 17 2009, 11:19 AM']I don't know...it seems like what you guys are suggesting is that in order for a marriage to be valid (not subject to a future declaration of nullity) each spouse must give to each other a full, general confession of their past life. I'm not certain that this is actually Church teaching. Where is the line drawn?[/quote]

It's not so much a matter of Church teaching... this doesn't invalidate the marriage. But when it comes to living wisely and hopefully avoiding the need to bother with a tribunal somewhere down the line, then indeed, anything in your past that has involved needing rehab or battling an addiction needs to be talked about with a serious boy/girlfriend or fiance before making those vows.

[agnes88]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1869413' date='May 17 2009, 01:23 PM']I have heard many times, in moral theology, from priests at the tribunal, that you need to tell your prospective spouse that you have had previous sexual partners, but you should not go into great details because that leads to unnecessary burdens on your future spouse. The amount of detail depends on the length of your former relationship, and if there are any issues remaining like children or finances.

As an example, my husband had a former wife. Their relationship was annulled. The things I wanted to know, needed to know, was that he had been married, how long, what kind of issues led to their breakup, what were the grounds for annulment. I do not need to know the kinds of things they did in the bedroom, or any other private things about his first wife. I only need to know things from that relationship that might affect our relationship.[/quote]
I agree.

I don't think the OP's situation would be grounds for nullity, but I'm just a layman.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='agnes88' post='1874290' date='May 24 2009, 10:26 AM']I don't think the OP's situation would be grounds for nullity, but I'm just a layman. [/quote]

You'd be surprised how many different things can annul a marriage. I know I was first studying it. The most fascinating one is that if you kill someone's spouse, you can't make a valid marriage with the widow, even if she was aware of or a party to the murder.

The Canon that applies to the OP would probably be #1098 "A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life."

[Resurrexi]

The whole murder impediment is pretty smart actually. You don't want people killing their spouses so that they can remarry.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1874300' date='May 24 2009, 10:55 AM']The whole murder impediment is pretty smart actually. You don't want people killing their spouses so that they can remarry.[/quote]

Worked for King David. I agree that we don't want them to kill people to marry, but that the church considers a marriage to be invalid on its face in that circumstance is interesting. I never had a case like that, but have wondered if it was a situation where a cop has to shoot a man who is beating his wife, and ends up falling in love with her later, if it would apply.

[Resurrexi]

Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

I don't think the cop situation would apply, since he didn't kill the husband for the sake of marrying the wife.

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1874321' date='May 24 2009, 11:52 AM']Can. 1090 §1. Anyone who with a view to entering marriage with a certain person has brought about the death of that person’s spouse or of one’s own spouse invalidly attempts this marriage.

§2. Those who have brought about the death of a spouse by mutual physical or moral cooperation also invalidly attempt a marriage together.

I don't think the cop situation would apply, since he didn't kill the husband for the sake of marrying the wife.[/quote]

Yes, but suppose the cop saw her beauty immediately before pulling the trigger. Maybe he didn't need to shoot the husband to restrain him. What if years later the woman meets another man, and uses this canon to get an annulment?

It might make an interesting debate thread about all the different scenarios that lead to annulment.

[jwingert72]

Honest is always a necessity when entering a vocation. Steve must have the freedom to share the truth with his future spouse, not the sorrid details, but she should know that he is an alcoholic and past abuser. If not, then he is not ready for marriage. Any true friend and family member who truly loves will have the courage to step in an tell the young woman. That would be the truest act of love, for the truth will always set you free. Failure to do so would make anyone with prior knowledge a participant in an invalid marriage. I is imparative that this couple have more formation or it is a marriage set up for failure. He is not being a "good Catholic" if he is lying to his future spouse. Marriage is a complete self-gift to the other, withholding your past is withholding yourself, which means a marriage doesn't take place. Speak up out of the demands of love.

[CatherineM]

Canon Law #1069 says, "Before the celebration of a marriage, all the faithful are bound to reveal to the parish priest or the local Ordinary such impediments as they may know about." The question is would the family/friends be bound by this? It would depend on whether this past, or the non-disclosure of this past, is considered an impediment.