How are we to address putatively-married women?

Started by Daniel, August 16, 2017, 02:39:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Daniel

How are we to address putatively-married women? Miss [last name]? Mrs. [putative husband's last name]?

Miriam_M

Are you asking about the divorced and "remarried?"

The Harlequin King

Just using first name conveniently dodges the issue.

Daniel

Quote from: Miriam_M on August 16, 2017, 02:48:14 PM
Are you asking about the divorced and "remarried?"
Sorry. What I specifically had in my mind was a situation in which an unmarried Catholic woman attempted to marry an unmarried Catholic man outside the Church and is now living with him as if they were married. But now that you bring up divorce and "remarriage", that is a good question too.

Quote from: The Harlequin King on August 16, 2017, 05:41:28 PM
Just using first name conveniently dodges the issue.
Haha, not a bad idea in some situations :)

Perpetua

I guess it depends on the situation. Are they not fully aware of what they're doing, are they doing it for immigration purposes and thus not cohabitating, are they doing it on purpose? In situation nr 2 and 3 I would use her maiden name. Nr 2 would understand and appreciate it. Nr 3 would be upset, but quite frankly if you do it on purpose why pretend to save their feelings. Nr 1 must be clueless and so I would be more gentle and depending on how close we are, gently explain things maybe.

Greg

Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Daniel

Quote from: Perpetua on September 09, 2017, 07:45:33 PM
I guess it depends on the situation. Are they not fully aware of what they're doing, are they doing it for immigration purposes and thus not cohabitating, are they doing it on purpose? In situation nr 2 and 3 I would use her maiden name. Nr 2 would understand and appreciate it. Nr 3 would be upset, but quite frankly if you do it on purpose why pretend to save their feelings. Nr 1 must be clueless and so I would be more gentle and depending on how close we are, gently explain things maybe.
I see. That makes sense, though the distinction between the first and third categories is not always clear...

Quote from: Greg on September 12, 2017, 02:51:09 AM
Wench.
lol

On a more serious note, I am also wondering to what extent we are allowed to interact with these sorts of people (namely, Perpetua's first and third categories)? I know that if it's an occasion of sin, or if it causes scandal, then it's not ok. But is it ok in other circumstances?

For example, suppose I am going out to dinner. Am I allowed to invite these people along? Seeing as they are reputed to be married, it's not likely that I am scandalizing the general public by inviting them. And seeing as they are already cohabitating, it's not as if I am scandalizing them. And they are not an occasion of sin for me. So is this ok?

Or, suppose I were to secretly visit their house. Since it is secret, I am not scandalizing anyone (unless the couple tells everyone I was there). And since they are already cohabitating, I am not scandalizing them. And they are not an occasion of sin for me. So is this ok?

Or, suppose I were to openly visit their house? Since they are reputed to be married, it's not as if this will scandalize anyone. etc. etc. etc.?

Gardener

Quote from: Greg on September 12, 2017, 02:51:09 AM
Wench.

"There were no utensils in medieval times, hence there are no utensils at Medieval Times. Would like you a refill on that Pepsi?"
"There were no utensils, but there was Pepsi?"

"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

OCLittleFlower

And how about when we have to refer to them in print?  Such as, say, Melania Trump?
-- currently writing a Trad romance entitled Flirting with Sedevacantism --

???? ?? ?????? ????????? ???, ?? ?????.

Daniel

#9
How about a situation in which I am almost certain that a particular marriage is invalid, but I have no proof that it's invalid? If I don't see these people all that much anyway, is it ok if I just give them the benefit of the doubt? (Even though the doubt is extremely small?)

aquinas138

Quote from: Daniel on September 16, 2017, 08:01:44 PM
How about a situation in which I am almost certain that a particular marriage is invalid, but I have no proof that it's invalid? If I don't see these people all that much anyway, is it ok if I just give them the benefit of the doubt? (Even though the doubt is extremely small?)

Then you, as does the Church, presume the validity of the marriage until such a time as a Church tribunal should declare it null. Validity of a marriage is always presumed. Address her as a married woman.

BTW, it is also not good for you spiritually to make these judgments about matters that aren't really your business.
What shall we call you, O full of grace? * Heaven? for you have shone forth the Sun of Righteousness. * Paradise? for you have brought forth the Flower of immortality. * Virgin? for you have remained incorrupt. * Pure Mother? for you have held in your holy embrace your Son, the God of all. * Entreat Him to save our souls.

Greg

Quote from: OCLittleFlower on September 13, 2017, 12:40:41 AM
And how about when we have to refer to them in print?  Such as, say, Melania Trump?

First Wench.
Contentment is knowing that you're right. Happiness is knowing that someone else is wrong.

Perpetua

Quote from: aquinas138 on September 18, 2017, 10:31:18 PM
Quote from: Daniel on September 16, 2017, 08:01:44 PM
How about a situation in which I am almost certain that a particular marriage is invalid, but I have no proof that it's invalid? If I don't see these people all that much anyway, is it ok if I just give them the benefit of the doubt? (Even though the doubt is extremely small?)

Then you, as does the Church, presume the validity of the marriage until such a time as a Church tribunal should declare it null. Validity of a marriage is always presumed. Address her as a married woman.

BTW, it is also not good for you spiritually to make these judgments about matters that aren't really your business.

Thank you for clarifying this.

Kephapaulos

It becomes difficult about how to address people and talk about them when one knows they are not married validly. Even if there is suspicion of possible invalidity, it still gets pretty discomforting about what to do.

We have to assume that most people intend to be in a marriage "till death do you part." People are well aware of that phrase, no matter what is their maturity level or less than detrimental psychological state, and there is still the sense of "not being able to get out of it." We have the natural law written on our hearts. It must be cultivated, but it's still there. The Ten Commandments summarize it.

Most don't realize how marriage is a public act that does affect greater society, i.e. you, me, and everyone else. Instead we have the prevalent selfish approach to marriage, but that does not cause a defect of intention unless investigated and determined as such by the Church under the heading of one of the categories that invalidates a marriage.

If I want to marry a rich woman only for the money, it would be selfish, but I still intend to be in a marital union without obstacle because children and being together are still in the realm of thought of society. People still have the idea of having children and being together in whatever imperfect manner they may hold to that.

Granted, there are cases where the rights to have children were not given or there was some defect of consent, but that has to still be investigated and determined by the Church. We're not animals, but people think and assume nowadays that they can just pair up with someone else soon after.

Miriam_M

I think charity rules here, when addressing the woman -- not when judging matters canonically, especially about a Catholic.  I am taking Daniel literally --although he may be on his SD sabbatical at present-- when he asks about addressing the person. 

Let's put it this way:  I have much fewer scruples about addressing an adulterously-married woman, or a woman merely fornicating, as Mrs. X, than I have scruples about calling a He a She, even though we're told that calling someone by his or her true sex can be a form of "violence" if the person has altered his or her sexual parts.

Also, in the case of a heterosexual couple, they usually announce at some point what/how they want to be called.  Plenty of even legitimately married women now prefer to keep their maiden names.