Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: steve86
Dear steve86,

Apparently, the woman is involved in the process with the marriage tribunal. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that she believes subjectively that her first marriage was invalid.

In that she has submitted her case to the Church, and has explicitly and rather publicly committed to accepting the judgment of the Church, it isn't unreasonable for her to hold to her subjective opinion until it is replaced by the determination of Objective fact.

She abides by the teaching and discipline of the Church by abstaining from Communion until there is a ruling one way or the other, but until the Church tribunal were to uphold the validity of the first marriage, I think one can make allowances for someone in objectively doubtful circumstances.

Should she find herself with a ruling of validity rather than of nullity, it would be incumbent upon her and her putative "husband" to do their best to follow the path that you have laid out.


sitetest

25 posted on 11/04/2014 11:21:06 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: sitetest

Good explanation. Thanks.


41 posted on 11/04/2014 11:58:36 AM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson