marriage of non practicing Catholics

[MarysLittleFlower]

You are worried and concerned about all the laws.. It is making you agitated and taking away your peace. Laws are the Church's job not ours. We wouldn't go wrong just by seeking God by putting His Will first, working out our salvation and becoming a saint, - all the rest would be added and others would receive more graces through us as well. We can help people much more that way. His Kingdom starts in the heart and then radiates to others, as I understand. If we keep peace in our heart it would help others more. God is not free to work as much when we are so anxious and upset. 

Edited December 21, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Kevin]

4 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

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. 

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.

3 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Kevin I think its best you talk to a good priest about your struggles. I'm not interested in having a debate on this thread. I am concerned about my friends salvation - even in a valid marriage, and I don't want for her to keep being a lapsed Catholic but to discover the faith. I'd be glad if her marriage is valid but i want her to go further and find her faith.

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.

[Kevin]

6 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Salty.

Wow, really, thank you for that charitable response.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Kevin

[Guest]

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?

[Papist]

7 hours ago, Maggyie said:

Well MLF, your really don't need to worry about possibly attending a wedding where the Eucharist is received unworthily.  Because unless you have the gift of reading souls you won't know the state of the souls of the couple at that moment. No need to go all Shiite Catholic. 

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?

[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.