The Ultimate Super-sized XXL Marriage Thread Plus

[HisChildForever]

If you don't attend and immediate family ostracize you for it, including the couple in question, that sort of ruins any future evangelization opportunities for you and causes family hardship. I think I read somewhere about the fallout of not attending causing greater harm than if you actually attended.

[Nihil Obstat]

22 minutes ago, HisChildForever said:

If you don't attend and immediate family ostracize you for it, including the couple in question, that sort of ruins any future evangelization opportunities for you and causes family hardship. I think I read somewhere about the fallout of not attending causing greater harm than if you actually attended.

That is a possibility, but I believe the risk in this case is unavoidable. The risk itself does not seem to justify my own complicity.

[PhuturePriest]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Not in the Catechism. Sounds like a perfectly good loophole to me. No mortal sin because you didn't know.

Uh, no. That's not even kind of how it works. If you know, it doesn't matter where it's stated and not stated, the fact is that you still *know*, regardless of where you learned it.

[Maggyie]

My understanding is that the omission of the sixth precept from the Catechism was deliberate, given the Church's current position on interfaith marriage (ok with the correct permissions). I think I've read somewhere that there have been different lists of precepts used at different times anyway. Not that this has any bearing on the subject at hand. It's pretty clearly grave matter regardless.

[vee]

it seems that the decision has been made to not attend leaving the tricky part of telling that to the couple!  Prayers that you find the right words to tell them that and that they one day clean up all the loose ends of their other marriages. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

25 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

My understanding is that the omission of the sixth precept from the Catechism was deliberate, given the Church's current position on interfaith marriage (ok with the correct permissions).

If you marry outside of a Catholic ceremony and you do have the proper permissions, then naturally this is still "obeying the Church's marriage laws."

I'm wondering if this wasn't included in that section of the Catechism because the Church's marriage laws overlap so heavily with basic moral theology. The other precepts of the Church listed there are somewhat more "arbitrary," in terms of not being obligations you could discern on your own simply by pondering the moral law. 

[Nihil Obstat]

5 minutes ago, vee said:

it seems that the decision has been made to not attend leaving the tricky part of telling that to the couple!  Prayers that you find the right words to tell them that and that they one day clean up all the loose ends of their other marriages. 

Yes, that is the gist of it.  Thank you for the prayers.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think the situation of a news reporter introduces irrelevant variables into the equation. Attending in a professional capacity in order to work in an occupation that is public by nature, I think that affects moral considerations with regards to attendance and the message that is sent thereby.

Well I was just trying to make the point that attendance does not necessarily mean endorsement. I would guess that in the world you live folks know that you are a practicing Catholic and that you don't endorse it.  I would think that if people saw you there they would think that it is because that you would not want your relatives feelings to be hurt by your absence. 

If I have a kid and he wants to play Football even though I don't approve and think it is too dangerous, I might still go to his game just to show him some general love. It doesn't necessarily mean that I am OK with him playing the sport.

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

In either case, the question of precepts in the Catechism is a distraction. Whether or not they are enumerated in that manner, it is clear to me that going against the Church's teachings with regards to marriage is objectively grave matter. Full knowledge will always be subjective, but in this case it is not relevant.

I am not convinced that your conclusion is correct, but if you believe that your attendance at the wedding is sin then I can't fault you for not attending. You should follow your conscience.

[Nihil Obstat]

Perception of my attending or not attending is only secondary. The primary issue is that attendance seems at least dangerously close to formal cooperation. Declining to attend is first an act of fidelity to church teaching, and only second is it a 'statement'.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Sponsa-Christi said:

But you're right . . .

Music to my ears.

Quote

But when you're questioning whether disobeying the Church's marriage laws is grave matter, do you mean just the act of entering into an invalid marriage per se (like, a Catholic marrying someone civilly "on paper" for immigration purposes?), or are you talking about marriage in the normal full sense of the term?

I mean marriage in the normal full sense of the term. Me and my girlfriend of two years go to Vegas and elope. Am I going to the hothouse for eternity for that?  I don't know. But given the frequency with which this happens, you would think that there would be some official document somewhere that indicates that it is grave matter. You would think that there would be an explicit, clear teaching on the matter. The Church just wouldn't want folks going to their peril unknowingly would She?

Perhaps such a document exists. Are you aware of one?

Quote

Because even apart from whether or not obeying the Church's marriage laws is a precept of the Church, a normal invalid marriage is grave matter from a moral theology standpoint. A couple in an invalid marriage are not actually married at all in the Church's eyes, so if they engage in "the marital act" while not actually married, then this is the sin of fornication (or adultery in the case of some second weddings), which itself is grave matter even apart from any other consideration. 

I am not sure if Church approval / non-approval really has any bearing on whether there is a sacramental marriage as far as God is concerned.

From what I understand, the requirement for Church approval has not existed in all points in time. But I don't think that God's requirements for a sacrament can vary with time.

You also have a difference in treatment between Catholics and non-Catholics.  If two non-Catholics go to Vegas and elope, the Church considers that as a valid marriage.  If the husband or the wife was unknowingly baptized as a Catholic at 1 month old, adopted by a nice protestant couple at 2 months old, and lived his/her entire life as a protestant with absolutely no knowledge of his Catholic baptism an living his life as a good Lutheran, the Church would consider that an invalid marriage. But how could the fact of whether the marriage is truly valid in the eyes of God vary depending based on whether a person was baptized by a Catholic or Lutheran priest?

Take the annulment process as another example.  Are these determinations infallible? I do not think so. Plenty of dioceses in the USA hand out annulments like they are candy.  You could have the same exact couple. The same exact set of circumstances.  The husband asks for an annulment in Poland and is denied. A person under identical circumstances asks for an annulment in Florida and has it granted. Now, if the circumstances are exactly the same, how can there be a valid marriage in the eyes of God in one circumstance, but not in another circumstance, because of the personal whims of the particular priests who preside over the annulment process in each country?

What I am trying to get at here, is that I do not think that the Church confers marriage on a couple.  It recognizes marriages.  That is, it makes fallible determinations as to whether a true marriage is present, but those determinations  do not in and of themselves have any bearing on whether there is truly a marriage.

So, moving on to your point, let's say that a Catholic person named A gets "married" to B in a Church, "divorced" and then marries "C".  If a Church official incorrectly makes a determination that A and B were never truly married in the eyes of God and grants an annulment, do A and C commit adultery?  Yes. I think so. But their culpability is reduced because they operated under the assumption that they were not married, based upon what the Church told them.  If A and B were never truly married in the eyes of God but a Church official makes an incorrect determination that they were married and denies their annulment, do A and C commit adultery?  I don't think so, because neither of them was truly married in the first place. In this case you do not have adultery, you have a violation of a precept of a Church. And based on the conspicuous absence of the marriage laws among the precepts listed in the Catechism, there would seem to be some doubt about whether violating that (alleged) precept would be a grave matter at all.

This is all just my speculation on the topic, of course. But I think it is just as good as any of the other speculations going on in this thread.

38 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Perception of my attending or not attending is only secondary. The primary issue is that attendance seems at least dangerously close to formal cooperation. Declining to attend is first an act of fidelity to church teaching, and only second is it a 'statement'.

OK. If you believe it is an act of fidelity to Church teaching I can respect that. But again, I am not convinced that is the case. But again, you have to follow your conscience on it. I respect that.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Peace

[dUSt]

9 hours ago, franciscanheart said:

 

I'm genuinely curious what conclusion you came to that makes it okay for you to participate by attendance in some but not others.

A civil marriage could be a first step in a journey that leads closer to the truth, while a polygamous marriage is a step in the opposite direction. 

[Nihil Obstat]

56 minutes ago, Peace said:

 

OK. If you believe it is an act of fidelity to Church teaching I can respect that. But again, I am not convinced that is the case. But again, you have to follow your conscience on it. I respect that.

Likewise at least in some sense I think it would be an act of perfidy against church teaching in this case for me to attend. At least in a limited manner.

[Amppax]

It's interesting that a lot of people are saying go to the reception if you don't feel comfortable going to the ceremony. Personally, I would go to both or neither (unless there was some other sort of extenuating circumstance). It just seems rude to me to skip the ceremony, but then show up for the party. 

I don't have any other advice, but you and your family will be in my prayers, Nihil. 

[Luigi]

To quote an aunt of mine, "Go! And give them a rosary for a wedding present!" 

[NadaTeTurbe]

You have my prayers. I had to cut off contact with a part of my family because they were too much involved in corrida (a spanish sport where you torture a poor bull for hours, strictly condemned by the Church). It's still hard and what helped me was reading the life of the Saints (specially St Bernadette), who were rejected by their family because of their convictions.