|
作者
|
內容
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/10/25 上午 11:47:53
|
|
|
I heard from a friend in the US that in her parish, the parish priest:
"got in trouble because he advised a convert who was
married to a divorced woman to live together chastely, as brother and sister,
with his wife. The wife was extremely angry and complained."(in my friend's words).
Later I heard the wife is going to sue the priest for that.
Did the father do the right thing?
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/10/25 下午 04:52:56
|
|
|
This lies in the very complex area of marriage law under our canon law. Would Brother Handsome give us some clue?
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2002/10/26 下午 05:35:02
|
|
|
解答這問題不是這麼容易,因為沒有足夠的資料.
他的配偶是否基督徒?他妻子的前夫又是否基督徒?
這前夫是否仍然在生?
問題是非常複雜的.
當然,最保險的做法是所謂的居如兄妹.正所謂唔做唔錯但這是否可行?
另外,妻子的一方如不是公教徒,她沒有守教會律法的責任,但丈夫按自然律有履行丈夫責任的義務.
情形有些像非信徒丈夫要求使用人工節育,信友妻子應/可否拒絕?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/10/26 下午 09:56:32
|
|
|
Umm I now ask her about that. Just a moment.
|
|
歸一
管理人員
|
Posted -
2002/10/27 下午 02:38:09
|
|
|
這些問題是歷史遺留下來的問題，我覺得等於以往教友問：究竟彌撒遲多少還可以領聖體，如出一轍。夫妻之間的房事要我們這些局外人"搜集資料"，"作出判決"，是否有點黑色幽默呢？
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/10/28 上午 10:06:19
|
|
|
我看,這得回到教會婚姻法的'本意'上來看,才有基會了解這些看似橫蠻無理的規條 - 聖經上所說的關於兩性(不限於夫婦)的性關係,有很多人不同意,特別新教徒:為何保祿說守貞比結婚好,結婚又比淫亂好,結了婚當然地也不能跟配偶行淫(不正常交媾)等等,這都是有動機,有本意的說話,曲解了對信仰本身不一定有好處。
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2002/10/28 下午 05:40:18
|
|
|
另外,我想問問柯律師,法庭會受理這樣的指控嗎?
該名男子是否應享有憲法所保護的宗教自由權利,而不與妻子行房呢?
妻子又是否有權利要求丈夫盡其丈夫的責任呢?而丈夫拒絕是否需要作出賠償呢?
而該名神父"教唆"此名丈夫又是否需要負上法律責任呢?
一說起"教唆"就想起廿三條,上兩星期到保安局開會,妳的同事(律政司的)果然有番幾度散手.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/10/29 上午 10:11:18
|
|
|
In secular law, there is a concept of 'conjugal rights'. If a married couple never consumates their marriage, the marriage is null and void. If after consumation one party refuses to perform his/her 'duty', the other party can plead such non-performance and seek divorce.
So it boils down to the same result - such a marriage would not be able to subsist de facto or de jure. There is nothing, under secular law, as living like brother and sister unless both party consent to the arrangement.
I would say that living like brother and sister isn't some thing compatible with the sacrament of marriage either. Such couples should be properly separated.
|
|
Josemaria
|
Posted -
2002/10/29 上午 11:58:17
|
|
|
I am even more interested in knowing how, under the law of that State, the wife could sue the priest for so counselling the husband. If the United States 'harbour' draconian laws such as this, isn't it much more frightening than the proposed enactment under the BL23? It runs directly counter to religious freeedom.
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/10/29 下午 04:09:09
|
|
|
Umm...Here comes the details(not "too" detailed)
the convert is a Jew, and his wife is a Christian but not Roman Catholic. Her ex-husband is still alive.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2002/10/29 下午 06:40:07
|
|
|
Is Christian means vaild baptized person?
Is the ex-husband a christian?
if the both answers is negative, then the marriage of the first marriage could be dissolved.
if the seaond answer is neg, then the marriage could be dissolved too.
Just in the case that the two are baptized, then nothing can be done, except to agure the the first marriage was null and void.
|
|
靚仔
|
Posted -
2002/10/29 下午 06:46:47
|
|
|
Cecilia, I know that she could ask for divoice in the civil court, no doubt about that, but the problem is their marriage may not be vaild at all in the church view, otherwise, he don't need to live as brother and sister with his "wife".
My interest is just how she could sue the priest as josemaria said?
|
|
Augustine
|
Posted -
2002/10/30 下午 01:18:16
|
|
|
Ya, the ex-husband is not Christian in any sense,
but the woman involved is a baptized Christian.
|
|
Cecil
|
Posted -
2002/10/30 下午 04:04:48
|
|
|
The point is quite novel - if in the eyes of canon law the marriage is void, than the couple is just co-habiting. Under secular law, they appear to be married validly, and hence the conjugal rights follow.
The counselling of the priest - where does it stand? Under canon law he should be perfectly correct. If however the wife takes the view that he has wrongfully advised her 'husband' under civil law and wants to sue the priest, I wonder if the local law of that State allows such law suit to take place. If it does, then I think it is anti-religious freedom.
|
