You can be married by the justice of the peace and it can be valid in the eyes of God if neither of you are Catholic.

I know, but we're not talking about marriages where neither of the party is Catholic!

I know Church teaching on marriage.

Also, co-habitation before marriage is always sinful so no matter what this is wrong no matter how you want to look at it.

We don't know that they'd be co-habiting.

Are you going to deny this Clare? Be honest, that's your argument. That their co-habitation is ok and if a priest says so it's ok because what does Our Lord mean anyways?

That is not my argument. My argument is that their confessors know they're situations. We don't.

You're cloaking the argument with using a priest as a shield. I should know, after spending 8 years of my life seeing how people used priests as shields for their decisions (finding negligent priests).

Negligent priests? Perhaps they've found perfectly orthodox priests who KNOW they're situation, and what they're situation will be after the civil ceremony.

Speak on facts Clare. Your personal opinions are worthless, so are mine, that's why I'm basing it on Church teaching.

I don't know the facts. My personal opinions are based on Catholic teaching too. Pharisaic scandal and all! Not judging. Assuming the best, not assuming the worst.

We don't know how they came to be in this situation. We don't know how they will be carrying on after the civil ceremony (though Vox has hinted that they'll be waiting till the convalidation before doing what the sacramentally married can do!).

Clare.

Here are the facts...
Joe (Tracy's "fiance"/Vox) said:

The reason anything was posted at all was not to get congratulations or cause scandal.  We posted it so people would understand why Vox's name changed, why she moved, etc.  Questions were bound to arise, and we just wanted to make it clear what was happening.

 
Where did she move to? Near Joe or with Joe? No answers but definitely an issue...

Tracy (Vox) said:

I really want to reiterate: each person reading this and who may be scandalized by thinking the worst (that Joe and I are going to marry civilly and behave like most married folk do behind closed doors)

She says they will not be having sex... but she claims she's getting married for civil benefits of marriage, and for "love and pragmatic concerns". Now why would you get for civil benefits?
-Insurance and tax benefits
-Under one roof, which is implied by speaking about what they will or will not do behind closed doors

Now is anyone here stupid enough to believe she moved to where Joe is and they aren't going to live together? Please I'd love to hear this one. The arguments used are like blind parents, "Oh my son is a good boy, he wouldn't do anything like that" as he runs out with his car and a case of beer in his hand.

So now Clare you have 2 choices please pick:
A. Either neither of them were sacramentally married and they were both living in sin while starting a trad Catholic message board and now are a horrible example to other Catholics as they plan on co-habitating by the very virtue that they are doing this for "pragmatic reasons"

or...
B. One or both of them was sacramentally married or validly married and hence they are committing adultery and then co-habitating

Now if you don't think they are not co-habitating and getting married simultaneously I really think you are making up anything in order to pretend you are making a point.

Pick which one. Each choice is horrible and wrong. No confessor has the right or authority to help one sin. We know both A and B are the only choices that is happening. No one can pretend she is moving to be near Joe to move down the street while getting married after just getting divorced in a civil union.

You don't need to be a confessor to know this is wrong. The buzzwords are proof enough with "listen to your heart" by Tracy. You are using the confessor/priest card as a shield to what could be right when neither solution is moral. The solution is to wait and truly look at God's will because at the very least Tracy was a public sinner and living in sin.

Confessors are not rules to sanctity. What does St. Francis de Sales and St. Teresa of Avila tell us about confessors? That most lead souls to Hell. That's 500 years ago when people didn't get divorced like it's going out of style.

If they want to do the right thing (even though I'm personally against the whole annul the world mentality), they would seek annulments (if necessary because one of them is probably validly married) and get married by the Church DESPITE the economic benefits of civil marriage.

The right answer is to wait, the wrong answer is to broadcast it to the world and pretend that your situations aren't completely scandalous.

How romantic no one knows.
 

Case closed then.

Clare.

Any Catholic married outside the Church is in an invalid marriage.  Married inside the Church, it is sacramentally valid, even though one partner may not be Catholic.

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

How romantic no one knows.
 

Case closed then.

Clare.

That wasn't the point of how romantic they act out their "love", but whether or not they are co-habitating. Good attempt of switching the debate.

The people over at fisheaters who are reading this you should reconsider your position against the dictates of Almighty God who tells us that going to another person after you are married is adultery without the blessing of Almighty God, and God will not bless that union, no matter what man says because of their vow "until death do us part." You have a responsibility to denounce this action at the very least as publicly scandalous. We have a responsibility to say the truths of Almighty God at all times because "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven."

If your spouse has a moral heart attack you still cannot leave your marital state. St. Paul reminds us that the unbelieving wife is saved by the believing husband. Even if your spouse leaves you, you cannot leave your spouse because it is your job to sanctify them through your devotion to God and your vow. Our Blessed Lord explains this in no uncertain terms:

"What God has joined together, no man put asunder."
and...
"If anyone wishes to be my disciple he must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me."

That's it, you are married, but better or for worse so you must pick up your cross and follow him. The example given by the owners of the site is scandalous and their wanted attention for celebration was spoiled when someone told the emperor they had no clothes. I don't want attention, I want Vox to do what is morally right and either close her message board to stop giving a bad example, or to post a public retraction and take down the thread. Whether she wants to admit it or not her views do influence people, and her desire was clearly celebrate her actions using a champagne glass, it was not for informational purposes only.

Vox banned me, and her pretense it was something else I don't think is entirely true. I posted to a woman who just got pregnant that we shouldn't celebrate such a pregnancy outside of wedlock, and this same woman who opened up about her sɛҳuąƖly promiscuous life commented that she didn't care about having a nice beautiful Mass but having mariachis do the reception with her friends. I thought so many people were aggrandizing the situation without calling to mind the gravity of what was happening. If that is  the matter by which I was banned I will remind everyone that no one would ban someone like myself for saying that unless they were upset about something else.  

And my posts were deleted, which I'm sure if Vox left up anyone would see they weren't vicious, but said for her good and the good of the community who were acting disproportionately to what was said when it was clear she was coming with a troubled conscience and ended up being supported into a false security.

I honestly believe my censorship over there (which Vox has a right to, it's her board) has more to do with her situation than what I posted to another member of her board. It's a bit disengenuous for her to claim it was for my other post.

Do what is right. Don't follow your heart unless your heart is leading you to do what is right according to the teachings of Almighty God. In a world of broken marriages should someone who makes a message board and shows herself as a Traditional Catholic expose her position of adultery?

When someone admits having romantic feelings for a married man, that alone is adultery, to continue into a civil union for someone like Vox is wrong if she decides to publicize it. Bad examples must be denounced once they go public, that's not gossip. Gossip by it's very nature is to take what is not known or private and take it publicly, or to take what is rumor and talk about it. This is not gossip whatsoever, this is 100% Catholic accountability. Our Lord tells us to tell the erring person and then tell others to correct the sinner. To comfort the public sinner as a poor, maligned person is to blind people to the situation is wrong and blind yourself because of your friendship. "If I be pleasing to men, I be not pleasing to Christ Jesus" St. Paul reminds us.

If the matter was private I would never have said a word. This is a public scandal to have someone who support open adultery have a message board for traditional Catholics and moderate the board. My judgment is nothing, but the judgment of Jesus Christ is clear on this issue and for people to celebrate adultery in the name of traditional Catholic views and beliefs is scandalous and horrible.

I posted to a woman who just got pregnant that we shouldn't celebrate such a pregnancy outside of wedlock...

I dunno about that. A few years ago I bumped into an unmarried former work colleague who told me she was pregnant. I wasn't sure whether to congratulate her or not, so I just chatted generally, "when's it due?" that kind of thing.

I asked an SSPX priest if it was ok to congratulate an unmarried mother to be, and he said yes. So from then on, I have done. Children are blessings.

Clare.