A
alitaptap
Guest
I came across this proposal of a women’s party-list group. I would appreciate CAF members view on this.
- Status
T
Trishie
Guest
Article 7 Catechism of the Catholic Church
It’s really not an option…
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
For understanding of the requirements of marriage in the eyes of God and the church, you may like to visit this page and following pages on this website, Catechism of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM
God’s kindest blessings to you.
It’s really not an option…
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
For understanding of the requirements of marriage in the eyes of God and the church, you may like to visit this page and following pages on this website, Catechism of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM
God’s kindest blessings to you.
L
LovinmyLife
Guest
Wow. Thats really all I can think to say. I don’t really think it would solve their clogged court problem- what happens when after 2 years someone wants to call it quits? I doubt they are going to wait 8 years. Of course, if they really want to limit divorce proceedings, they could limit the reasons allowed for divorce. I don’t know what the current laws are in the Philippines, but if they are anything like the ones in the US, well, there’s your problem.
I find this to be the most bizarre part of their reasoning actually:
If you feel the need to walk on eggshells around your spouse to keep your marriage together, there are probably some deeper issues there. Just my guess.
Goodness, sometimes I have to wonder what is going on in people’s heads these days.
L
LovinmyLife
Guest
I’m assuming they mean it to apply to the civil aspect of marriage. Haha, I’d like to see someone try tell God they’ve put an expiration date on something he made permanentArticle 7 Catechism of the Catholic Church
It’s really not an option…
THE SACRAMENT OF MATRIMONY
1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
For understanding of the requirements of marriage in the eyes of God and the church, you may like to visit this page and following pages on this website, Catechism of the Catholic Church.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P51.HTM
God’s kindest blessings to you.
T
Trishie
Guest
In responding to your question, perhaps you may also find it helpful to read what Canon Law tells us:
MARRIAGE (Cann. 1055 - 1165)
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
As Catholics and Christians, there really is no discussion that we can really countenance.
There are many sad stories in marriages and relationships, as we all know, to our great sorrow, but the womens’ idea for a 10 year expiry of marriage are non-scriptural.
Thank you for your question,
Warm regards, Trishie
MARRIAGE (Cann. 1055 - 1165)
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM
As Catholics and Christians, there really is no discussion that we can really countenance.
There are many sad stories in marriages and relationships, as we all know, to our great sorrow, but the womens’ idea for a 10 year expiry of marriage are non-scriptural.
Thank you for your question,
Warm regards, Trishie
J
JRKH
Guest
Very interesting.
Of course from a Christian viewpoint the proposal is a “no-sale”. It violates the sanctity of marriage as instituted by God and reaffirmed by Christ.
From a civil standpoint - well that is another matter.
It might surprise you but when I was sojourning away from The Church I actually thought of this as well. (I was in a very unhappy marriage at the time)
My thought process went something like this. (and this is purely thinking in “civil” terms)
*Marriage is a contract - A most airtight one at that - and yet it is one of the easiest to get out of so why not change the way this contract is constructed?
Suppose the contract be limited in time. Not in scope but in time.
This would provide, as the article suggests the opportunity to reevaluate the marriage at the end of the term. To part amicalby without the need for lengthy legal involvement.
In my mind I took a longer view though. I placed the term at 30 years, or after the youngest child was “of age”.
The 10 years in the article is a bad idea since it would too easily leave many women with small children and no husband. Trying to enforce “support” orders and so forth can be difficult to impossible.
A stipulation requiring the couple to remain together until the Children are grown provides greater stability for the Children while providing the unhappy adults with the future option of seperating once their “duty” as parents of minor children is discharged. *
Anyway that was my thought at the time.
Naturally I would never propose such a thing today since it is not a teaching of The Church.
If a secular government were to propose and accept such civil contracts it might work for some few people, but not for Christians.
Peace
James
Of course from a Christian viewpoint the proposal is a “no-sale”. It violates the sanctity of marriage as instituted by God and reaffirmed by Christ.
From a civil standpoint - well that is another matter.
It might surprise you but when I was sojourning away from The Church I actually thought of this as well. (I was in a very unhappy marriage at the time)
My thought process went something like this. (and this is purely thinking in “civil” terms)
*Marriage is a contract - A most airtight one at that - and yet it is one of the easiest to get out of so why not change the way this contract is constructed?
Suppose the contract be limited in time. Not in scope but in time.
This would provide, as the article suggests the opportunity to reevaluate the marriage at the end of the term. To part amicalby without the need for lengthy legal involvement.
In my mind I took a longer view though. I placed the term at 30 years, or after the youngest child was “of age”.
The 10 years in the article is a bad idea since it would too easily leave many women with small children and no husband. Trying to enforce “support” orders and so forth can be difficult to impossible.
A stipulation requiring the couple to remain together until the Children are grown provides greater stability for the Children while providing the unhappy adults with the future option of seperating once their “duty” as parents of minor children is discharged. *
Anyway that was my thought at the time.
Naturally I would never propose such a thing today since it is not a teaching of The Church.
If a secular government were to propose and accept such civil contracts it might work for some few people, but not for Christians.
Peace
James
U
UpUpAndAway
Guest
Unless one is a Muslim - and even then only under certain circumstances - divorce is illegal in the Philippines. I believe the Philippines is one of only three countries that has not legalized some form of divorce for the entire populace, the other two being Malta and (perhaps obviously
Wow. Thats really all I can think to say. I don’t really think it would solve their clogged court problem- what happens when after 2 years someone wants to call it quits? I doubt they are going to wait 8 years. Of course, if they really want to limit divorce proceedings, they could limit the reasons allowed for divorce. I don’t know what the current laws are in the Philippines, but if they are anything like the ones in the US, well, there’s your problem.
) Vatican City.(I am Philippine-born of native born-and-raised Filipino parents [who have been married for 42 years
], raised in the US. How do you do :tiphat: )That makes two of us!
While I don’t agree with the proposal at all, I do see how it came about. Since divorce is not an option for the vast majority of Filipinos, if one spouse wants out they just leave. Often, the abandoning spouse disappears so there is no spiritual or material support contributed to the family (s)he leaves behind. This has happened to a few members of my family, sadly. The marriage still exists but effectively it is as if there is no marriage. This leaves the remaining spouse and any children on their own…forever. The proposal seems to be an attempt to apply “fairness” to an unfortunate situation: If you want out, wait ten years and you can go. Your spouse will then be free to remarry.
However, I don’t think offering a free get-out-of-marriage card at the ten-year mark is the solution. Why not make an earnest attempt to save the marriage?? I see so many people calling it quits just because it’s “easier.” Marriage is too important to treat as disposable, and yet…
Then again, I also see people rushing into marriage without really thinking about what they are doing. Pre-Cana is optional in the French diocese I got married in. I insisted upon it anyway. My (fallen-away Catholic) future MIL said we were wasting our time. Hmm. A Protestant friend was offered free but optional pre-marital counseling during her engagement. She and her fiancé declined. Why would anyone refuse the gift of marriage prep, especially if it were free??! But, I digress.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
It seems to me like a certain politial party is attempting to drum up media attention. It appears they have succeeded.
N
Nec5
Guest
I think there should be a signing bonus involved as well.
R
Rascalking
Guest
LOL! When I get married, I’m demanding a no-trade clause!I think there should be a signing bonus involved as well.
K
KitSileya
Guest
Perhaps showing my ignorance here, but isn’t the Phillipines a country where marriage is under threat because they don’t have divorce, so anullments are rampant instead? I think someone mentioned that it was wreaking havoc for women, because they are being left by their husbands, they get their marriages anulled, and then, since they weren’t married in the first place, they have no right to alimony etc?
L
lutherlic
Guest
The real problem here is the word marriage. I wish civil authorities worldwide would find something else, perhaps “civil union”, and we could all just consider their involvement to be a contractual matter.
The battle is long lost on civil divorce. We are slowly losing the battle on homosexual unions. This is just another affront.
Back to this proposal - essentially it is an automatic divorce unless (I assume) both parties wish to renew it? What about the children? Not only would this in essence promote divorce but children would have the automatic expiration of their parents union to look forward to. Very stable.
From a Catholic viewpoint I couldn’t see how this arrangement could be considered a valid marriage.
The battle is long lost on civil divorce. We are slowly losing the battle on homosexual unions. This is just another affront.
Back to this proposal - essentially it is an automatic divorce unless (I assume) both parties wish to renew it? What about the children? Not only would this in essence promote divorce but children would have the automatic expiration of their parents union to look forward to. Very stable.
From a Catholic viewpoint I couldn’t see how this arrangement could be considered a valid marriage.
C
Catholic1954
Guest
In the Phillipines, husbands and wives leave each other all the time, and the abandoned party just finds someone else and sets up a new household. There are many couples who have been living together for many years and are not married to each other. It is a strange situation, the family is recognized as the foundation unit of the country in their constitution, but traditional marriage is ignored.
M
masuwerte
Guest
Annulment is also a civil law issue in the Philippines. Divorce doesn’t exist, but civil annulment does. BUT, it’s so expensive it’s beyond the reach of the vast majority of the people.
N
Nec5
Guest
No problem. You’ll be a franchise acquisition. Just get in writing and in triplicate.
K
KitSileya
Guest
Thanks for that clarification.
A
alitaptap
Guest
The Constitution of the Philippines says “Marriage is an inviolable social institution. It is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.” (Sec.2 Article XV, 1987 Constitution).
To be more specific, the Family Code of the Philippine Constitution says “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation…” (Article1).
Why propose 10-year expiry on marriage? There’s no law that protects women? There is.
I believe that existing law (R.A. 9242 “Anti-Violence Against Women and Children”) will suffice. In fact there is no law in the Philippines that protects men. Husband abuse is no different than wife abuse.
Going back to the proposed 10-year expiry on marriage, I think this will not thrive because they need to amend first the Constitution before proposing this to the congress (Sec.2 Article XV, 1987 Constitution) and the Family Code (Article 1).
J
JenDelight
Guest
regarding abuses, both men & women can avoid being abused if they refuse to be abused. just like business, business will not prosper if there are no customers. if a person is firm on protecting his/her self, no one can abuse him/her.
for me, i believe this new proposed law will still be useless if people let themselves be abused. if you carefully looked at the current situation of women and children in the philippines today, despite R.A. 9242 there are still a number of them both accounted & unaccounted for are still abused by men/women. i think it is more of a cultural problem rather than a civil issue. filipinos, women & children in particular, are submissive and family-oriented. they tend to keep quiet just to keep the family together or just to keep the peace. this is also a result of the more 300 years domination of Spaniards, Japanese & Americans that treated us as slaves & “low-level” people who doesn’t have the right to speak or complain.
J
JenDelight
Guest
i think the proposed law is still feasible. just make sure to safeguard it to allow only the aggravated party to file for the expiry while imprisonment or huge penalty to those who failed to comply with the contract of marriage.
just like any contract, marriage is also an agreement that each party should strictly comply to. anyone who failed to comply with the marriage contract should be imprisoned or given huge penalty. this way, people will really think of the consequences before even getting into a marriage agreement. this will also prevent irresponsible and abusive partner from prospering.
- Status