I am a Russian Orthodox Christian, and I know other Russian Orthodox Christians who consider a woman's menses to be impure. As a woman, this monthly bleeding is not saying that I am evil or bad during that time. I am simply not pure. Here is a good explanation of this. However, I know we Orthodox Christians plan our weddings around the bride's menstruation cycle, because she should be completely pure at that time. Do other Christian denominations do this too?

On Catholic call-in-shows and even on this website, there are innumerable questions about the scandal caused by attending the weddings of people who aren't perfect angelic prototypical Catholics. One or both parties can be: 1. divorced 2. not-Catholic 3. fallen-away Catholics 4. didn't even realize one of the parties was baptized Catholic 4. living together 5. have children out of wedlock 6. currently pregnant 7. a known sinner Which of these should disturb a Catholic's conscience enough to prevent them from attending a marriage and how does proximity to the couple (maybe they're cousins that you don't know so well) affect the decision?

### The Background A baptized and confirmed Catholic married a Protestant in a Protestant church without permission. About the marriage: - The marriage covenant was made with the full understanding of what a Christian marriage meant in the eyes of God (*cf*. CCC 1601-1620): a solemn covenant between two baptized Christians, with full consent (*cf*. CCC 1625-1632), for life, for the purpose of procreation, etc. - The celebration of marriage was similar to CCC 1621-1624 and similar to the canonical form, except: - officiated by a valid Protestant minister instead of a Catholic priest/deacon - CCC 1621: instead of in the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it's made in the presence of Christ in the Protestant ceremony - CCC 1622: instead of receiving the sacrament of penance, the couple confess sin to one another in Christ - The couple has lived honoring the marriage bond and obligations like a Catholic marriage should be (even without contraception), thus realizing The Effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony (*cf*. CCC 1638-1642), The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love (*cf*. CCC 1643-1654), and The Domestic Church (*cf*. CCC 1655-1658). - The couple is raising the kids as Protestants although in a denomination that is not hostile to the Catholic Church. The couple is also attending a conservative Protestant church regularly and bring up their kids there as good Christians who love the Lord. Let's say it's [ACNA](https://anglicanchurch.net/) , a more conservative Anglican denomination than the Church of England. **Now the Catholic has second thoughts** and wants to go back to being in a state of grace and receive the Catholic sacraments. But the spouse wants to remain in the Protestant church and does not allow the kids to attend the Catholic church, although the spouse gives full freedom for the Catholic to practice the faith EXCEPT to teach the kids one or two Catholic doctrines that the spouse doesn't agree, such as praying to Mary. **THIS IS TRULY A TESTAMENT TO THE WARNING GIVEN IN [CCC 1634](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1634.htm).** Therefore, although the spouse is more ecumenical than a typical Protestant, the Catholic cannot fully discharge the obligation spelled out in Can. 1125 §1 but made the best effort: > the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church; For sure, the Catholic has to receive absolutions for the following: - Have been away from the Catholic church - Have contracted a mixed marriage outside the church without exemption But I was taken aback at [Geremia's answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/90364/10672) that **fornication** needs to be repented. Is this true when the marriage is lived as described above? ### The Question Given the limitation that the spouse is not willing to convert and to raise the kids fully within the Catholic church (although she is not hostile to most of the teachings), **according to the Catholic Church**, what else does this Catholic need to do beyond confessing the two sins above and continue raising the kids in the Lord as Catholic as possible? Three related questions: 1. [CCC 1623](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1623.htm) says that > According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace **mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony** by expressing their consent before the Church. ... Although the "Church" here is a [Protestant ecclesial community](https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pope-says-other-churches-not-churches-in-proper-sense-1.949220) , it appears that this Catholic can remain in this Protestant marriage (as described above) without committing fornication, or is this not true? 2. It DOES appear that the [marriage has to be convalidated](https://archden.org/marriage/marriage-convalidation/) since the Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony without an exemption from the Catholic church. But is the Protestant spouse consent / presence needed for the convalidation? A [*Catholic Answers* article](https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage) suggests that this require radical sanation (Can. 1161 § 1) and in some cases the non-Catholic does not need to know (although it's preferable that the non-Catholic knows). But can radical sanation still be obtained even though the Catholic cannot perform Can. 1125 §1 to the full extent because of the spouse's opposition? 3. Modifying the case study a little, let's say the case is between a Protestant couple in which one wants to become Catholic but the other wants to remain Protestant and the kids need to be raised in the Protestant church. Is it an impediment for the would-be-Catholic to receive communion? Is marriage convalidation necessary / possible in this case? Is fornication committed without convalidation? ### Motivation for this question I believe there are many who are in this situation: who through Catholic evangelization effort now want to go back practicing Catholic but have a difficulty introduced by the Protestant spouse. Ultimately, this is an ecumenical question as all mainline denominations try to reconcile as much as they can without losing their distinctiveness.

I figured in heaven it’s a totally different reality than the life we have here on earth. So, I believe in heaven race, color, creed, nationality, and ethnicity will not exist in heaven. Plus, it’s heaven—-paradise—-a place of bliss for believers of Christ. Plus, we get new heavenly, immortal bodies. I don’t want them to be subject to race and color or nationality again in heaven. God forbid. So I am hoping that in heaven I will not be black ever again. Don’t ask why I just want this. I know marriage isn’t in heaven, but if romantic love or divine love for people in heaven which includes romantic love is in heaven then I am all for it. I want to see my crush in heaven with me even if he did marry in this earth. I know in heaven he will love me too. I just hope heaven won’t be disappointing lol. Other than that I hope I won’t be black in heaven, because it just doesn’t define me as a soul or person.

I am of the understanding that generally, the Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages as valid marriages. So in general, if a non-Catholic couple converts to Catholicism, they will not have to re-certify their marriage (or even if just one of the two becomes Catholic). I'm wondering under what circumstances one might not be able to transfer his/her marriage in this way, i.e. when would a converting person's marriage *not* be considered valid by the Church. For instance (and these things may be common in some cultures): * The person could be a remarried divorcee, * The couple may be first cousins, * One or both may have been underage at the time of the marriage, or still underage at the present time, * The marriage may have been conducted without consent of one or both parties, * The person may be a polygamist. Which situations which would definitely never be considered a valid marriage? If some are considered on a case-by-case basis, how are cases determined?

According to Catholic theologians, when does sexual attraction become lust? By "sexual attraction", I mean the pleasure those of the opposite sex feel in one another's presence. By "lust", I mean "seeking venereal pleasure (*delectatione venerea*) not in accordance with right reason" (St. Thomas Aquinas, *Summa Theologiæ* II-II q. 154 a. 1 co.).

Did St. Augustine think sexual pleasure and concupiscence are identical? If not, why do some people seem to think this? Concupiscence is simply a disorder in which the body rebels against the rational soul; this is something completely different from pleasure.

Is committing adultery the same thing as having a concubine? Is having a concubine a form of adultery?

St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of *Opus Dei*, once said "God in his providence has two ways of blessing marriages: one by giving them children; and the other, sometimes, because he loves them so much, by not giving them children. I don’t know which is the better blessing." One [web article](https://surprisedbymarriage.com/2020/09/08/to-the-small-catholic-families-god-loves-you-too/) quotes this. I also read somewhere that Scott Hahn was quoting St. Josemaria Escriva saying this in his book on his journey with *Opus Dei*, which I put on hold at my local library, but don't have in my hands yet. I am trying to track down the origin of this quote. Was it something the Saint wrote and published? Was it part of a speech or homily? Was it something he just said off the cuff that someone happened to write down? If no one here knows, I will answer the question once I get Hahn's book in my hands and can track the source down.

Specific situation: wife has mood swings, most of the times she treats me well but at night an occasional "Fiona mode" happens, and I don't mean the physical appearance. I tell myself she's exhausted breastfeeding a 30 month old toddler (of ours), but I vaguely remember the instances of mean reaction to my nightly advances before our second kid was born. And she regularly (a few times a week) lashes out at our older kid. So the question I ponder do we have a relationship. Is that a woman that's worth my while. And if we don't then why staying. Not sure if this is an opinion based question.

Genesis 2:24 says, > Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. This makes sense in Trinitarian theology since we are made in God’s image as Genesis 1:27 says. > So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. I understand Genesis 2:24 to be a reflection of the Trinity since a man and a woman, which are two people, become one flesh in the bond of marriage. This is similar to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three persons in one essence. How do Unitarians explain being created in God’s image while also holding to this unification within marriage? P.S. I am not putting forward some twisted idea that the Trinity is a marriage.

It was a surprise to me during a recent conversation that a marriage could be performed by someone other than a priest in the Catholic Church. And after reviewing the only similar question on this site, I decided that I would ask it more properly. Here is some of my understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage within the [Eastern] Orthodox Church. However, as I know people might like to read a source, here is the Orthodox Church of America website (The Orthodox Faith, Volume II - Worship / The Sacraments - Marriage ) >Jesus taught the uniqueness of human marriage as the most perfect natural expression of God’s love for men, and of his own love for the Church. > > According to Christ, in order for the love of a man and woman to be that which God has: perfectly created it to be, it must be unique, indestructible, unending and divine. The Lord himself has not only given this teaching, but he also gives the power to fulfill it in the sacrament of Christian marriage in the Church. 1. The Sacrament of Marriage is the oldest sacrament, instituted by God Himself within the Garden of Eden. 2. A Man and Women become one spirit and one flesh, in a way that is not possible for humans alone. (The Holy Spirit is involved here) 13. Marriage is the human expression of the creative and caring love of God, (the perfect Love of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity) 14. As such a Marriage is a relationship between Man, Woman, and God. 3. Marriage does not "part in death" but is fulfilled and continues. (It is an eternal sacramental reality) 8. Marriage is a mystical participation in the divine relationship with God. (it is a Sacrament) 15. Marriage is a sacrament, it requires a Priest/Bishop. 4. Marriage as Sacrament is closed to the non-Orthodox, without explicit permission from the Bishop. 9. The Sacrament is preceded by the Betrothal rite. (Where rings are exchanged) 5. The Physical Symbol of the Marriage are crowns. (Stefana) 6. There are no Vows or Contractual Language, God unites the couple through the Church's blessing. 10. Marriage involves the Eucharist, the couple receive communion together. 7. The marriage is a combination of Joy and ascetic struggle. 11. Marriage is a path to theosis (union with God) where the couple helps each other grow in holiness. 12. Only 1 marriage can contain the perfect meaning and significance that Christ has given us. (Divorce/remarriage is ... a whole other subject) I'm not sure if that is everything, but that is what came to mind after looking up and remembering the preparation stuff for my own marriage. How is it different for the Catholics?

I read somewhere a couple of years ago that Eastern Orthodox believe marriages contracted on earth, remain in place in heaven (however it is impossible to get married once you arrive in heaven). Whereas Catholics believe that marriages are dissolved at death and everyone in heaven is single. I also heard that Eastern Orthodox allow divorce, but I don't understand how that fits with the "eternal marriage that persists even after death" theology I described above. Is my understanding of Catholic and Orthodox marriages correct? More generally, what is the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of marriage?

I was researching and studying reproduction in the New Heaven & New Earth. Edit: I'm personally a pantheist and I believe the King James Bible. I have not read all of it and my opinion changes according to that. Psalms 139 is the reason I'm a pantheist. Matthew 22:30 KJV >For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. Mark 12:25 KJV >For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. Luke 20:35, 36 KJV >**35** But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: **36** Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Which kinda solves it right? But what about Isaiah 65 & 66 or even Isaiah 54, Isaiah 65:20 KJV >There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. So, as I told all of you, extreme difficulty in understanding this. I have read other versions of the Bible like the NIV, but the meaning is still not changed... Isaiah 61:1-11 >**1** The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; **2** To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; **3** To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. **4** And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. **5** And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. **6** But ye shall be named the **Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God**: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. **7** For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them. **8** For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them. **9** And their seed shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people: all that see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the seed which the LORD hath blessed. **10** I will greatly rejoice in the LORD, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, and as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. **11** For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations. Revelation 20:1-6 >**1** And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. **2** And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, **3** And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. **4** And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. **5** But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. **6** Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be **priests of God and of Christ**, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

> Matthew 22:24 (KJV) Saying, "Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother." In general do Christians believe it is OK to marry the wife of a deceased brother? How about if she has already children from the first marriage?

According to Stéphane-Joseph Piat, O.F.M., *Story of a Family* ch. 3, St. Thérèse of Lisieux 's father Louis Martin >had closely studied the theological value of such a [[virginal] marriage][4] as that of St. Cecilia and that of [Sts. Elzéar de Sabran and Delphine de Glandève ], as witnesses the following note, copied by his own hand at this time, and found among his private papers: >>*Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* >> >>The bond which constitutes this Sacrament is independent of its consummation. We have a striking proof of this truth in the case of the Blessed Virgin and St. Joseph who, although they were truly married, observed perpetual continency. These illustrious spouses have since had as imitators several saints who, living as virgins in the married state, have limited themselves to a perfectly pure union of hearts, renouncing by common consent the physical union which was permitted to them. These marriages contained everything essential to their validity; they had even this advantage over the others that they represented more perfectly the chaste and wholly spiritual union between Jesus Christ and His Church. Has this *Concerning the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony* (presumably titled *De la doctrine de l'Église sur le sacrement du mariage* in 🇫🇷) been published, as a result of his beatification and canonization process ?

I did some prior research on the Catholic doctrine on the use of contraceptives and condoms and learnt that they differ greatly with some protestant denominations on this subject and the Pope did publish an encyclical detailing the position of the Catholic church on this matter. *Casti Connubii (1930) by Pope Pius XI* >“Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.” Was this inspired by the Biblical basis where God commanded all human beings to be fruitful, to multiply and fill the whole world or there are more Bible passages that support this doctrine? *Genesis 1:28* >“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.” Would prefer an answer from followers of the Catholic faith.

### The Catholic position. *There are many other sources, I just picked one at random* > "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, **without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure**: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." **Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.** > > Summa Theologica - Whether the unnatural vice is a species of lust? **Basically, if you are married the venereal act must always be unprotected and end inside.** They will often also point out this particular situation in Genesis 38, quoted from the NKJV to reflect the catholic preference for the MT Old Testament. > NKJV: 8 And Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and marry her, and raise up an heir to your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the heir would not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in to his brother’s wife, that he emitted on the ground, lest he should give an heir to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; therefore He killed him also. Right, so Onan pulled out and the average catholic person suggests that this was the problem. (I humbly disagree, but that's off-topic here) I think this side of the issue is well understood so let me show the Jewish side of it. ### The Jewish position (Talmud) The ancient Jewish views come from rabbinic interpretations like the Talmud and later writings. As Christians and Jews understand, sexual acts are supposed to be within marriage. And focus on procreation. A focus is not the same as the outright demand of the catholic position. Here are some quotes of the English from the Talmud in Nedarim 20b. > However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, **whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes**, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. (Nedarim 20b:4 ) > The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. **Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so?** (Nedarim 20b:6 ) I'm sure we are adult enough to understand the euphemism of a "turned-over table" here in the context of a woman who is upset about it. But I'm going to quote the Talmud again because I really don't want this euphemism to be misunderstood. > The Gemara wonders about the proof from Tamar itself: But weren’t there **Er and Onan**, her previous husbands, who presumably engaged in sexual intercourse with her? The Gemara responds: Er and Onan engaged in sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, and therefore she was still a virgin. (Yevamot 34b:1 ) The verse about Onan has mixed opinions but from what I can tell primary objectionable act is that Onan was disobeying God by blatantly disregarding his levirate marriage obligation. Not even putting it in the wrong hole itself. Looking through other things on Sefaria I found all kinds of instructions like... > Approach her lovingly and passionately, so that she reaches her orgasm first. - Iggeret Hakodesh, 13th C. (found in this article ) Also, I looked in Mi Yodeya (J:SE) - What are reasons of מצוות עונה marital sex? 3. Wife is longing for Husband & 4. Husband simply does not want to be tempted to sexual sin. (Additionally the answer starts with wives have a right to sexual pleasure just as they do clothing and food... so yeah) ### Quick side by side | **Aspect** | **Catholic Position** | **Ancient Jewish Position** | |--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------| | **Core Principle** | Sex must always unite procreation and unity; no exceptions. | Sex should prioritize procreation but allow marital freedom for pleasure or preventing sin. | | **Scriptural Basis** | Genesis 38 (Onan), natural law theology (Aquinas). | Genesis 38 (Onan), Leviticus 15, Talmudic interpretations. | | **Flexibility** | Rigid; universal rules apply to every act. | More flexible; depends on intent, context, and rabbinic opinion. | Ancient Jewish regulations are pragmatic and interpretive, shaped by rabbinic debate, and don’t enforce a universal procreative mandate for every act. Catholicism, with its rigid systematic theology (Augustine, Aquinas, etc), insists on procreation as mandatory in every instance. ### Things I've checked already... I've looked at these aspects so far... but I'm giving up and asking you guys now. - Jesus did not abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17-18) - Flee from sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 6:18-20) does not contradict the previous Jewish understanding in any way. - Galatians 3 // Acts 15 Both of these passages do not suggest that any previous sexual laws or understandings of immorality had changed. - The marriage as an icon of Jesus and the Church in Ephesians 5:25-33 doesn't retroactively change the previous understandings either, if anything it strengthens them. - And of course, we have the entire book of Song of Songs which urges us to Love God with the same passion as two people in passion. (This is mentioned here as well ) ### Question On what basis do the Catholics change the original ancient understandings on this subject? No traps here... honestly curious as, to why the Catholics made this rigid universal rule when none existed previously. Edit: Talmud is way too late to be valid in the format I presented. Making my question a frame issue. I'm not deleting this though as the answers are insightful.

According to the Catholic Church, can abortion be grounds for marriage annulment?

A fun refutation of gay marriage supporters who say on Facebook: > Not too long ago cross-racial marriages were not allowed, supposedly by God. would be to say, well that's not my church so what do I care, they should have been Catholic to begin with. However, before I bite off more than is worth chewing and get my apologetic handed back to me in the form of an L on my forehead. Has it ever been the position of the Universal Church, (not just the Honorable Rev. Bigotus) that people from different races should not marry or that racial purity in humans is an end worth pursuing?