Amazed by the lack of understanding

[TimothyH]

It’s sort of a chicken and egg situation. Are there so many annulments now because there are really so many null marriages? Maybe so.

And if there are so many null marriages, is it because the couples were never ever taught that marriage is for life, and can be dissolved only by death? For that is the Church’s teaching.

I think there is a real difference in how people think of marriage now, compared with times in the past.

I grew up in a place and time where marriage was seen as a lifelong indissoluble commitment. When a man proposed marriage, he did it in the full knowledge that once married, there would be no divorce, not ever. So he knew upfront that this was the woman he would be joined to for life. As did she.

Now, that was primarily a Catholic understanding, and it was emphasized from grade school to college. But in my neck of the woods, it was pretty much the Protestant understanding too. In all my school years, neither I nor my friends, whether in Catholic or public schools, knew of anyone whose parents were divorced. On the rare occasion when we encountered a kid whose parents had been divorced, it was treated as a strange anomaly, sort of like missing an arm or a leg. I remember once a kid mentioning that someone had a “half-sister.” I couldn’t for the life of me figure what that could mean.

So the common understanding as a couple walked to the altar was that this is for life.
That is no longer a common understanding. Which means, perhaps, that there is something less than full commitment in those vows they recite.

This is a very wise post.

I believe that there are so man annullments because, as you have speculated, many marriages were never marriages in the first place, primarily due to pre-existing pornography addiction.

Those addicted to pornography are incapable of living out a life of self-giving and self-sacrifice, but are slaves to self-gratification and use of other human beings for their own personal pleasure.

With 25% of western men addicted to porn, there are a great number of men who enter into marriage but are incapable of living it out even if they understood what it meant. There cannot be full commitment in such a situation. For the porn addict, marriage is about gratification of self, not about giving of self to the other.

-Tim-

 

[robwar]

This is a very wise post.

I believe that there are so man annullments because, as you have speculated, many marriages were never marriages in the first place, primarily due to pre-existing pornography addiction.

Those addicted to pornography are incapable of living out a life of self-giving and self-sacrifice, but are slaves to self-gratification and use of other human beings for their own personal pleasure.

With 25% of western men addicted to porn, there are a great number of men who enter into marriage but are incapable of living it out even if they understood what it meant. There cannot be full commitment in such a situation. For the porn addict, marriage is about gratification of self, not about giving of self to the other.

-Tim-

very true but also consider that we have no fault divorce laws so someone who never wanted to be divorced could end up divorced because one partner wanted it. The laws need to change back and make it hard to get a divorce. there is no accountability left, especially if children are involved. Likewise, living together before hand will most likely doom the marriage.

 

[M-Dent]

Tim,

I believe that there are so man annullments because, as you have speculated, many marriages were never marriages in the first place, primarily due to pre-existing pornography addiction.

Those addicted to pornography are incapable of living out a life of self-giving and self-sacrifice, but are slaves to self-gratification and use of other human beings for their own personal pleasure.

With 25% of western men addicted to porn, there are a great number of men who enter into marriage but are incapable of living it out even if they understood what it meant. There cannot be full commitment in such a situation. For the porn addict, marriage is about gratification of self, not about giving of self to the other.

I do agree with you there’s a serious problem with many unprepared for marriage. I look no further than the 1960’s and contraceptives. The contraceptive mentality has been the most damaging to humanity.

Once procreation was relatively divorced, not only from marriage but the sexual act itself (as birth control pill reasonably promised) we were in a heap of trouble. It’s this mindset as one of the reasons far too many young people seem incapable to see harm in homosexual relations. It’s no different than anything else to a large part of society.

Humanae vitae was a prophecy.

 

[Vico]

“And life together in human society will be enriched with fraternal charity and made more stable with true peace when God’s design which He conceived for the world is faithfully followed.”

Pope John VI, No.30, Humanae Vitae (1968).

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

[aicirt]

This is a very wise post.

I believe that there are so man annullments because, as you have speculated, many marriages were never marriages in the first place, primarily due to pre-existing pornography addiction.

Those addicted to pornography are incapable of living out a life of self-giving and self-sacrifice, but are slaves to self-gratification and use of other human beings for their own personal pleasure.

With 25% of western men addicted to porn, there are a great number of men who enter into marriage but are incapable of living it out even if they understood what it meant. There cannot be full commitment in such a situation. For the porn addict, marriage is about gratification of self, not about giving of self to the other.

-Tim-

Anyone who is addicted is incapable of giving. Consider how many lives have been destroyed by drugs, alcholol, gambling etc. Then there are those, both male and female, who are abusive.

I would advise anyone to go to counseling first and, if that didn’t work, to leave the marriage.

There’s another discussion re. Pre-Cana. All of the above should be discussed at those conferences but, apparently, they are not. Some on that board stated that if they had been given more information during the conference, they wouldn’t have married the person they did.

 

[JimG]

Tim,

I do agree with you there’s a serious problem with many unprepared for marriage. I look no further than the 1960’s and contraceptives. The contraceptive mentality has been the most damaging to humanity.

Once procreation was relatively divorced, not only from marriage but the sexual act itself (as birth control pill reasonably promised) we were in a heap of trouble. It’s this mindset as one of the reasons far too many young people seem incapable to see harm in homosexual relations. It’s no different than anything else to a large part of society.

Humanae vitae was a prophecy.

I agree with this as well as the other posts, especially robwar’s post about no fault divorce. My point had less to do with specific contributing factors or bad marriage preparation than it did with the general acknowledgement that marriage was for life. A woman or a man might discover some undisclosed aspect of their spouse sometime later in marriage. If so, they knew from the outset that while they could end up divorcing the spouse civilly for a pressing reason, as far as the Church was concerned they remained married to that person and could not remarry.

There was in fact, less marriage preparation given in those days than there is now. And yet the marriages lasted.

I think it was understanding that fact of permanence from the very start that in fact helped to make marriages more permanent. Everyone knew it was a binding commitment which could not be undone.

And that is the teaching of Christ and of the Church: a valid, consummated marriage cannot be undone by any power on earth.

But if the persons marrying no longer believe that, are they really capable of marriage? It is not a matter of feelings. It is a firm act of the will.

 

[Nick003]

I’m 47 and Single (never married).

As I’ve paid closer attention to my faith, I’ve become aware, not only of my requirements but also of a potential spouse.

I don’t want to commit adultery. I want to be in a loving relationship which God will smile upon.

 

[TimothyH]

Tim,

I do agree with you there’s a serious problem with many unprepared for marriage. I look no further than the 1960’s and contraceptives. The contraceptive mentality has been the most damaging to humanity.

Once procreation was relatively divorced, not only from marriage but the sexual act itself (as birth control pill reasonably promised) we were in a heap of trouble. It’s this mindset as one of the reasons far too many young people seem incapable to see harm in homosexual relations. It’s no different than anything else to a large part of society.

Humanae vitae was a prophecy.

This is a very important post because it gets to the root cause of many social ills, that of the culture of recreational sex, which is possible through and in fact caused by the widespread accpetance, availablity and use of artificial contraceptives.

Even abortion finds its root cause in contraception - the culture of contraception which demands recreational sex as a right naturally demands abortion as a logical consequence.

I wonder if you have read, “Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul” at Catholic Exchange or if you are familiar with Human Life International which has fought against contraception as the root cause for some time.

As an aside, it was not only Humanae vitae which was prophecy, but Casti connubii which was published on the last day of 1930. In August of that year, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church published Article 15 which stated that “Other means” besides abstinance were acceptable to prevent birth. The Catholic Church all but begged the Anglican Church to clarify the statement, or to retract it, but they did not, and so on the last day of that year, Pope Pius XI published the document which condemned artificial birth control. The encyclical is breathtaking, and paragraph 56 is scathing.

56. 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.

Remember, this was 1930.

The opening paragraphs of Casti connubi discuss what was happening at the time and what would happen in the future if it did not stop, just as Humana vitae did.

-Tim-

 

[Vico]

This is a very important post because it gets to the root cause of many social ills, that of the culture of recreational sex, which is possible through and in fact caused by the widespread accpetance, availablity and use of artificial contraceptives.

Even abortion finds its root cause in contraception - the culture of contraception which demands recreational sex as a right naturally demands abortion as a logical consequence.

I wonder if you have read, “Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul” at Catholic Exchange or if you are familiar with Human Life International which has fought against contraception as the root cause for some time.

As an aside, it was not only Humanae vitae which was prophecy, but Casti connubii which was published on the last day of 1930. In August of that year, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church published Article 15 which stated that “Other means” besides abstinance were acceptable to prevent birth. The Catholic Church all but begged the Anglican Church to clarify the statement, or to retract it, but they did not, and so on the last day of that year, Pope Pius XI published the document which condemned artificial birth control. The encyclical is breathtaking, and paragraph 56 is scathing.***56. 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.***Remember, this was 1930.

The opening paragraphs of Casti connubi discuss what was happening at the time and what would happen in the future if it did not stop, just as Humana vitae did.

-Tim-

A very good and authoratative source. To add to that, in 1880 there was this statement from the Apostolic Penitentary giving the definition of what we now call Natural Family Planning (NFP), then called periodic continence, as abstain … except on those days which, according to certain recent theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons. (See Latin below.) So there can be no robbing of that which cannot produce conception, therefore NFP is not procreative. It is not possible for an infertile period to be deprived of fertility.

American Heritage Dictionary, robbing: “3. (tr) to deprive unjustly to be robbed of an opportunity”.
Here is the statement from 1880 defining NFP with my translation.

"De uso exclusivo temporum agenneseos:

"Qu.:An licita in se sit praxis coniugum, qui, cum ob iustas et graves causas prolem honesto modo evitare malint, ex mutuo consensu et motivo honesto a matrimonio utendo abstinent praeterquam diebus, quibus secundum quorundam recentiorum theoremata ob rationes naturales conceptio haberi non potest?"

“Resp.: Provisum est per Resp. S. Paenitentiariae, 16. Iun. 1880.”

 

[M-Dent]

I wonder if you have read, “Contraception: The Bacteria Devouring America’s Soul” at Catholic Exchange or if you are familiar with Human Life International which has fought against contraception as the root cause for some time.

As an aside, it was not only Humanae vitae which was prophecy, but Casti connubii which was published on the last day of 1930. In August of that year, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church published Article 15 which stated that “Other means” besides abstinance were acceptable to prevent birth. The Catholic Church all but begged the Anglican Church to clarify the statement, or to retract it, but they did not, and so on the last day of that year, Pope Pius XI published the document which condemned artificial birth control. The encyclical is breathtaking, and paragraph 56 is scathing.

Thanks for the note about Casti connubii, Tim. I have read many encyclicals but for some reason not this one. I’ll be certain to read it. **(I just found the link. **)

I’ll check out the article at Catholic Exchange.

Dr. Janet E. Smith is well worth reading on this topic.

With parents as the primary educators of their children – it’s their responsibility to educate themselves so they can pass on info about the grave dangers their children will face. I find none worse than an underlying bad philosophy for life.

 

[M-Dent]

Casti connubii which was published on the last day of 1930.
56. 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.

Remember, this was 1930.

Tim, reading this – especially the judgement of “an offense against the law of God and of nature” reminded me of an essay I read recently. I didn’t want to risk this thread drifting to far from its original purpose - I created another thread - which links this article.

 

[Vico]

The translation.

"Regarding the Exclusive Use of the Infertile Period

"Qu. Whether the practice is licit in itself by which spouses who, for just and grave causes, wish to avoid offspring in a morally upright way, abstain from the use of marriage – by mutual consent and with upright motives – except on those days which, according to certain recent [medical] theories, conception is impossible for natural reasons.

"Resp. Provided for by the Response of the Sacred Penitentiary of June 16, 1880."9