Sounds like there’s no such thing as an ex-Catholic or ex-Marine!
But really, my question is about how a marriage that appears to be ‘the same thing’ can be be a) recognized AND b) not recognized. It gets kind of hair-splitting, at least to me. I.e., the marriage is NOT recognized if it is in (say) a Presbyterian church between a Presbyterian and a Catholic. THEN, that same ceremony in a Presbyterian church between two Presbyterians IS recognized.
So years down the line if the two Presbyterians divorce (as is recognized by the Presbyterian church), when one of them wants to marry a Catholic, his/her former marriage is recognized and s/he cannot marry the Catholic in the RC Church.
BUT in the case given here, a (fallen away) Catholic marries a Presbyterian in the Presbyterian Church, and the church doesn’t recognize the marriage (or that’s what I understand the story to be about). Thus, I R confused.
wow, just saw your reply to me brought havoc on you. Sorry about that.
I respect the Catholic Church and its absolute right to set the rules for its members. And I respect those who observe those rules, however much in the breach. If one doesn’t like it, one can practice their faith elsewhere (or nowhere), as far as I’m concerned. So I’m not at all challenging, but rather trying to figure out how what appears to be pretty identical circumstances can be perceived quite differently, that’s all.
I don’t know why at FR people can’t have civil discussions on religions without the sniping. I tend to avoid the religious threads for that reason.
Because it's not quite the same thing. Or perhaps, it's the same thing, but on different people, and thus, with different effects.
Two people can be performing the same action, but the intent could be different.
Two Presbyterians marrying in front of a Presbyterian minister intend to do all they can to marry properly within the sight of God.
What's not to like?
It would be nice if the two Presbyterians would also do what the Catholic must do - that is, promise to live according to Catholic teaching, to be open to children, and to raise any children Catholic.
But it would be a little silly to expect two Presbyterians to do those things, as they are not, and never have been Catholic, and thus, it is difficult for the Church to ascribe any lack or impediment in their marriage due to disobedience or failure to give one's entire self in marriage.
Now, a Catholic, baptized and raised, goes off to “be” a Presbyterian. And marries as a Presbyterian. The Church doesn't see this person as anything but a Catholic. And thus, failure to follow proper canonical form, which includes the promises cited above, can only be interpreted as sinful, wrong, a lack, an impediment, a failure to enter into the sacrament of matrimony fully and completely.
The Catholic, having turned away from the faith, is guilty of objectively grave evil, and his attempt to contract marriage, but refusing to promise to live according to the Church's teaching, to be open to children, and to raise any children as Catholic (among various obligations) makes invalid the attempted sacrament.
Bill Buckley used to say, there's a difference between pushing an old lady in front of a bus, and pushing her out of the way of a bus, even though both things are the same action. So, it is here. The two faithful Protestants obey God's law to the degree that they know it. The fallen away Catholic does not, having been taught better.
Now, it is entirely possible that the two Protestants didn't really understand even the basics of Christian marriage, even to the point of making the marriage null. That could form the grounds for a tribunal to consider a declaration of the marriage between the two Protestants. Or one or both parties didn't intend "till death do us part" because he or she didn't really believe in the indissolubility of marriage. I've actually seen cases like this. I've seen folks come into the Church with previous Protestant marriages where declarations of nullity were obtained, because one or both of the parties involved didn't meet the standards for a valid, Christian sacramental marriage, without regard to anything specifically Catholic.
But that's a little more involved, and a little less obvious than a defect in canonical form in the attempted sacramental marriage of a fallen-away Catholic. The defect of canonical form is a readily observable fact. The defect of understanding on the part of one or both of the two Protestants requires further inquiry to determine just how limited their understanding was at the time of marriage, and whether it truly represented an impediment to sacramental marriage.
sitetest