So help me nothing

"Freethinkers" - yes, well, are we not all free to think we are smarter than the God who created us? Doesn't make it so, though, does it?

Nice non vows! Primordial soup lol.

I think you have a typo, Jeff:

...faithful husband/wife...

To what faith?

Faithful to each other, hopefully?

Teresa,

Good catch, updated.

Freethinker = freedom from thinking.

As a Catholic who married an atheist (yes, I had a dispensation; yes, I know all the reasons one shouldn't; we were friends since childhood and I've never regretted our marriage for a moment), I'd like to pitch into the pot--in a serious moment--the fact that he takes our vows to be more binding than does the Catholic Church.

When you don't believe in a God, a promise is simply binding of itself, and there's no one who can provide a dissolution, or an annulment, or otherwise release you from your promise to be faithful. The promise simply carries its own force. (This is assuming one believes in an objective, intrinsic morality, which he considers to be self-evidently true.)

So while I could theoretically have my marriage dissolved under certain circumstances--as our marriage, while valid, isn't sacramental--and consider myself free to marry again, he considers himself permanently bound to his promise... because that's what it means for something to be a "promise."

Food for thought, anyway.

Mrs. Aurelius -

I submit that your husband is at least a theist, or remarkably inconsistant as an athiest. Perhaps agnostic? His stance begs the question: where the heck does that objective, intrinsic morality come from, if being itself has random origins?

In other words, he ain't making sense.

That said, you seem to have a wonderful 'natural' marriage, as the pagans were wont. Congratulations! All it lacks is a commitment to get each other to heaven, which in a marriage of two believers is understood to be the final goal of the marriage. But I am sure you have a good marriage, and wouldn't want to disparage someone I haven't met.

Pax,
Kate

"...he takes our vows to be more binding than does the Catholic Church... When you don't believe in a God, a promise is simply binding of itself, and there's no one who can provide a dissolution, or an annulment, or otherwise release you from your promise to be faithful. The promise simply carries its own force."

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I respectfully disagree.

When you do believe in God and enter a sacramental marriage, the promise is equally binding. The Church does not marry us, we marry each other. We consummate the marriage in private, not in the church (I hope).

There is no dissolution or release in the Church. Annulment means the marriage never truly existed. An atheist could just as easily claim it was never a "true" marriage.

"He considers himself permanently bound to his promise..." So do we! I hope your husband never changes his mind, because that's all he has to answer to.

I don't mean to start an argument, but I don't like the implication that an athesists' promise is more binding than a sacramental marriage.

I hope I haven't come across as rude. Just sharing my thoughts, which ain't worth the paper they're printed on.

That sounds so weird... imagine going on a blind date or something and the guy tells you he evolved from a primordial soup... I'd tell him that I've been born thrice: once with original sin, once with Baptism, and once with the Holy Spirit.
You know, they probably think us equally as weird in the respect

Kate,

Thanks for your kindness. He is aware that Aquinas would probably say that he does in fact believe in God, as the uncreated Good is in fact God Himself. But he disagrees with Aquinas on this point, and would say (does say) that the self-existing nature of the moral good no more requires a source than does the self-existing nature of mathematical truths. Rather like the dwarf in Prince Caspian who believes fervently in Narnia, just not in Aslan; may he likewise someday be joyfully surprised with regard to his error!

Andrew,

Alas, you have indeed come across as rude. First, you are mistaken to say there is no dissolution in the Church. If you will consult your Catechism and Canon Law on the point, you will discover that a non-sacramental but valid marriage (as is ours, since my dh is not baptized) may be dissolved under a number of conditions, which I won't go into here. As he regards the marriage vows as binding under all conditions, while the Church does not, his view is more binding than the Church's, whether you happen to like the implication or not.

Further, while it's true that he may someday abandon his long and deeply held conviction as to the objectivity of the good, and then have no one else to answer to, equally I could someday abandon my belief in God and then have no one but myself to answer to. There's no obvious reason why his convictions should be easier to abandon than mine; and I resent the insinuation that they are.

How very odd. Perhaps I misunderstand the word "binding". When my cousin divorced, her husband (an atheist) remarried almost immediately. However, when she wanted to marry again a few years later, she tried to go through the process of an annulment. However, the Church found her marriage to valid, so she was unable to remarry until after her ex-husband's death. As far as I know, if your husband decided to divorce you, his previous vows wouldn't have any weight to prevent him from marrying again, would they?

*sigh*

Okay, let's try one more time. What if the positions were reversed? Imagine my marriage fails, and my ex-husband is one day telling a friend,

"Perhaps I misunderstand the word 'binding.' When we divorced, my wife (a Catholic) remarried almost immediately, having renounced her Catholicism. However, when I wanted to marry again a few years later, I was still bound by the vows I had made to my wife, so I was unable to remarry until after my ex-wife's death."

In your cousin's example, assuming her ex had to alter his moral convictions to break his vows, she could also have done so (though Deo gratias, she didn't), and just married immediately outside the Church.

My husband is just as bound as I am, I by God, he by the nature of promises made. If we break our vows, I offend God, he violates the very nature of goodness. Either of us is equally likely--or unlikely--to change our metaphysical/theological convictions and thus be bound by nothing at all but our whims. The difference is that my the Church provides potential "escape clauses" (annulment or dissolution), while his beliefs don't.

"As far as I know, if your husband decided to divorce you, his previous vows wouldn't have any weight to prevent him from marrying again, would they?"--His vows have the moral weight of having been solemn promises. Is the problem that you don't believe that persons can wholeheartedly live their lives in commitment to the good, the natural law that is written on their hearts? Or that Catholics are less likely to change their convictions based on convenience than are non-Catholics? Have we not all seen Protestant congregations filled with re-married ex-Catholics?

No, I think the problem is that I thought what you were saying at first was "My husband thinks his word is more binding than the Church's bond." In which case... DUH! Of course he would.

But what you actually seem to be saying is that your husband is taking the mate-for-life naturalistic view. Like a beaver. Or certain types of birds.

Weird. My message posted before I was done.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear a Catholic's perspective on a natural marriage. Thanks.