Looking for catholic sources on marriage
#1
Dear people, I've followed this forum for ten years or more off and on, and signed up today.

..deleted the accompanying anecdote...

So, basically, now that I've poured out my heart, what I'm looking for are sources of what the church actually teaches about non-virgins who have never been married subsequently contracting marriage.  Is it possible?  I've read a lot of things from St. Augustine and other church fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the popes, but haven't found anything that directly pertains to it.  I looked in canon law and didn't see anything about the lack of virginity prior to marriage precluding future marriage, but I know that canon law isn't necessarily a test of orthodoxy.  If anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.

By the way, I'm not looking at studying the information in hopes of presenting myself to the man I love as a candidate for marriage.  He's already said he will never marry me, and I respect that.  I simply want to settle my mind on what is true, and I am not having any success on my own.

Thank you in advance.
Reply
#2
I really wonder if the problem is all about you. There are two people involved here, each with a past. He knows of your former life, probably because you were honest enough to share. But what do you know of his? You have demonstrated your loyalty and loving care beyond a doubt; he seems unable to respond in kind. There may be a good reason for this that has nothing to do with you.

Your relationship has moved away from genuine friendship and is now in unhealthy territory. To restore your sanity and peace of soul, it would be best to move out--you have much to lose if you do not. May God give you the strength to do what is necessary.
Qui me amat, amet et Deum meum.
[-] The following 3 users Like Teresa Agrorum's post:
  • 19405, MagisterMusicae, newenglandsun
Reply
#3
My heart aches for you. I am in a situation quite similar to yours. I agree with the previous poster. This is not a healthy situation. He’s putting all this on you. You have taken care of him, been his friend, been there for him when he was ill. Your past is your past. If you have gone to confession for your past and been leading a good Catholic life, why should he hold that against you? If you turn all of what he said around on him, would he live up to the standards? Is he a virgin? If you have never been married, you have no impediments to getting married. Please find a good traditional priest to talk to. He will help guide you in the right direction. I will pray for you.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ritaguadalupe93's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#4
Go along with anything Teresa Agrorum says. He clearly is not interested in marrying you. The relationship is not only over, it has become abusive. Move on. I've been in a similar situation though mine was a long distance relationship.
Reply
#5
(02-16-2020, 11:55 AM)runic_rhyme Wrote: what the church actually teaches about non-virgins who have never been married subsequently contracting marriage.  Is it possible? 

Wouldn't it be odd if there were an infallible and magisterial list of all the things that are not impediments to marriage?

It would be infinite and would look like: Having a dog is not an impediment; being a little quick tempered is not an impediment; a foot fetish is not an impediment; being too big a Muppets fan is not impediment;...ad infinitum.

Suffice it to say that no discussion of impediments to marriage I have ever read has ever mentioned non-virginity as an impediment (By the way, canon law, like the Doctor of Grace and the Angelic Doctor, is a source of magisterial authority - so if you are getting an implicit, "It's not an impediment," from them, and zero indication that it is an impediment, guess what? It isn't an impediment.).

If the reason you are asking to is gauge how weird your friend's reaction was, it was very weird.

That doesn't necessarily mean he's bad, but it does mean you have to work on moving out of there.
Reply
#6
Dear people, thank you for your responses.  I think that my brief account may have led people to the wrong conclusions, by emotionally charging the thread.  I have removed the anecdotal part of my post for that reason. 

Thank you for prayers and sympathy, dear people, and all of the suggestions.  I appreciate your consideration and hope that someone can direct me to what I am seeking.
Reply
#7
https://angelicopress.org/product/jesus-...ination-2/

https://angelicopress.org/product/the-sp...-marriage/

https://svspress.com/svs-press-marriage-pack/

https://www.tanbooks.com/what-god-has-jo...l?___SID=U

As has already been mentioned, if you haven't found that non-virginity is a bar to marriage, it likely is not. So you may not find anything like that because no one has probably felt the need to discuss it! Otherwise, these are sources you could try to explore until you are bored to death exploring the subject on the matter. I can't promise any of these have what you are looking for.
Reply
#8
(02-16-2020, 11:55 AM)runic_rhyme Wrote: ..deleted the accompanying anecdote...

Don't do things like this.

Think before you post, but don't delete things which people have already addressed here, because then the whole context is gone.

It's also against the rules.

As regards that accompanying anecdote, it is a very important aspect of what you have said, because clearly he is not going to be a good Catholic husband if his reaction is to bring up your past. Yes, to insist on the need for chastity and carefulness, is fine, but one does not attack someone who has been caring for them, and then expressed love for them, by responding by citing their past.

Whether that was a completely accurate assessment, or even just your impression of it, clearly it will be a major issue, and probably something which cannot be overcome if already it has come up so quickly. Thus I agree. You need to go elsewhere or else you will become a victim here, even if he had the best of intentions.

That fact that every single one of the reactions you have gotten has identified a serious problem here, should perhaps be a really important red flag.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply
#9
I’m no Canon Lawyer, so I submit my opinion entirely to the Church.
But, if the question is whether virginity is an impediment to a valid marriage, I can’t see how that could possibly be argued in the current law of the Church.
People get annulments due to some sort of impediment or defect at the time consent, and often get validly married to someone else. I think it’s probably safe to say that most of these persons entering valid marriages after a former invalid marriage are not virgins.

Also, the Church has various means of making valid previously invalid marriages — e.g. convalidation (which is the REAL marriage, anyway), radical sanation — or (and this is not really relevant to this topic) making marriages with a defect of canonical form valid by way of receiving a dispensation in advance.

In the cases of an invalid marriage being made valid, or someone leaving an invalid marriage for a valid one: I find it just about 0% likely that virginity is necessary for entering a valid marriage.
[-] The following 2 users Like FultonFan's post:
  • jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#10
(02-16-2020, 08:22 PM)FultonFan Wrote: But, if the question is whether virginity is an impediment to a valid marriage, I can’t see how that could possibly be argued in the current law of the Church.
People get annulments due to some sort of impediment or defect at the time consent, and often get validly married to someone else. I think it’s probably safe to say that most of these persons entering valid marriages after a former invalid marriage are not virgins.

I'm pretty sure that St Paul once wrote that it is better that virgins and widows remain unmarried, but that if better for their chastity, they should marry.

By definition, a widow is not going to be a virgin, so St Paul is telling us that there is no impediment.

Historically there was the impediment of propriety, which forbid a man to marry (after a first marriage ended by death), a sister of his wife (or vice versa). It was this impediment that Henry VIII had dispensed to marry Catherine of Aragon. His brother, Arthur died, and so he was impeded from marrying Catherine. The Pope gave a dispensation, and that became the subject of the whole fight.

Propriety, however, in Henry VIII's time, but not for a long time now, also used to concern those with whom one had had sexual relations. So if one had fornicated with a man, she could not then marry his brother. If a man had fornicated with a woman, he could not then marry her sister. For Henry this was apparently a problem with Anne Boleyn, as some thing one of his mistresses was Anne's sister.

That is the closest canonical impediment that has ever existed due to the lack of chastity before marriage.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • newenglandsun
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)