Confused about this passage

[Tomdstone]

I guess we may have to agree to disagree but it is really obvious to me which one of the two is taking the bible and the words of Jesus more seriously and which one isn’t.

If your mind is made up then what is the sense of asking the question? I would say that the Catholic Church did take the words forbidding divorce very seriously before Vatican II. But when you go from 9 annulments per year (1929) to more than 60,000 annulments per year recently, then I would be flabbergasted if anyone were to say that marriage annulments today are no easier to obtain than they were 85 years ago. To sum up, since I agree with His Eminence Cardinal Kasper, I see no point in a Catholic condemning Protestants for accepting divorce and remarriage.

 

[JohnGerard]

The Roman Catholic annulment process makes no sense to some Protestants as you can see from the examples of Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who wrote a book about it, and others with similar experiences. Apparently, it even makes no sense to Cardinal Kasper, at least in some cases. So you should be evenhanded about this. If Catholics can find loopholes to divorce, then why is it wrong when Protestants do the same?

It isn’t the divorces that I am questioning. It is the remarriage.

Let’s look at what you are calling loopholes and if they should be taken equally seriously:

Jesus said to marry after divorce is to commit adultery. The Catholic Church takes that seriously to the point of saying “If you divorce, you are not free to remarry UNLESS it can be determined that the first marriage was not valid. Because Jesus said so.” (Paul said a marriage is in effect until a person dies.) The annulment process is the way for the Church to determine if the marriage is valid.

So far all you have said is that a “marriage can die” which is completely non-biblical, and contradicts Scripture, and obviously is made up by man. Unless you would care to tell me a bible verse, maybe Jesus speaking or something, that says that a marriage can die? In this scenario, there is no annulment process needed to free oneself to remarry. All one has to do is declare that the marriage has died, lets move on, and what we have is 100% annulments.

I think I am being even-handed. But you seem to think that that means that I have to treat both of the scenarios above as though they are equally legitimate. Can’t. One is based on the bible, one is totally man-made.

Perhaps you would answer this question for me please: Do you think that ALL marriages that are entered into are valid?

 

[JohnGerard]

If your mind is made up then what is the sense of asking the question? I would say that the Catholic Church did take the words forbidding divorce very seriously before Vatican II. But when you go from 9 annulments per year (1929) to more than 60,000 annulments per year recently, then I would be flabbergasted if anyone were to say that marriage annulments today are no easier to obtain than they were 85 years ago. To sum up, since I agree with His Eminence Cardinal Kasper, I see no point in a Catholic condemning Protestants for accepting divorce and remarriage.

You don’t really want to talk about Jesus’ words about remarriage, do you?

You keep avoiding my most basic question in this post.

All you really keep doing is essentially saying, “Well, if Catholics can do annulments than they can’t tell Protestants they can’t divorce and remarry.”

You are putting words in my mouth if you are implying that I am the Catholic condemning Protestants for accepting divorce and remarriage. All I did was ask for interpretation of those verses. You gave me one and now refuse to answer questions about verses in the Bible or defend that interpretation.

Tomdstone,

Let’s end this one. I do want to thank you for the conversation.

God bless.

John

 

[Tomdstone]

Perhaps you would answer this question for me please: Do you think that ALL marriages that are entered into are valid?

Right. That is an interesting question. Generally, no, since a person may already be married and attempt a second marriage without informing his spouse to be. But I have one for you. Do you think that 95% of all Roman Catholic marriages are invalid? Because in some areas less than 5% of those who apply for the annulment will not get it. More than 95% of those who apply will get it. Some people familiar with the process have said that with enough study, they can always find some reason or another to use to have a marriage annulled. There is even a webpage which specializes in helping people fill out the forms correctly so that it will be a whole lot easier for them to obtain the annulment.
In order to get a better idea what I am talking about, and what Cardinal Kasper may be referring to, please see the following books:
Shattered Faith: A Woman’s Struggle to Stop the Catholic Church from Annulling Her Marriage
May 15, 2013
by Sheila Rauch Kennedy

What God Has Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism
Apr 16, 1998
by Robert H. Vasoli
Hardcover

It seems clear that your mind is already made up and that you are opposed to the Protestant methods of justifying divorce and remarriage, but on the other hand you have no problem with the Catholic marriage annulment system. Is that correct? Or am I wrong?

 

[mikekle]

Hey Gorgias,

Thanks for your comments on this topic. They are very helpful. How about one more…

What do you think…it looks to me like even with a divorce being allowed in Matthew 5:32, the end of the passage reads :"…whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

That seems straightforward, doesn’t it? We can’t remarry a divorced woman without committing adultery. Am I missing something? Just trying to understand.

You are right, it is very clear, but problem is, in the modern world, even the CC recognizes the times are different, there is JUST NO WAY they could preach this to a modern parish…so the alternative (like a few other issues), it is ‘altered’ or interpreted in a different way, as to better accommodate modern culture and what is normal. Its not right, but thats the way it is, and I have a feeling those effected will have to answer for it when they meet God.

Im not immune either, I was taught in reality, the first person you have sex with, is your wife in Gods eyes, if that is true, I am guilty of adultery many many times. I remember back in my late teen and early 20s years, it was fairly common for guys and gals to have slept with 40-50+ different people (and this was back in the 1990s)!!! I can only imagine God is weeping and shaking his head.

 

[Tomdstone]

You don’t really want to talk about Jesus’ words about remarriage, do you?

I gave you a possible interpretation which sets up a loophole to allow a second marriage after a divorce. A second marriage is allowed if the wife dies, is it not true?

1. Catholic marriage annulments: The couple was never married in the first place. Even though they paid thousands of dollars for the wedding celebration and invited their friends to witness the wedding which took place in a Roman Catholic Church.
2. A possible Protestant explanation: the marriage has died due to unforeseen circumstances.
   Consider case 1 or 2: at this point in time there is no valid marriage in either case. Therefore, the loophole is that the words of Jesus do not apply.
   Now I have a question for you. What percentage of Catholic marriages, once tested by the annulment process, are found to be “invalid” ? Is it 95%? Is this what Jesus wants? 95% of Catholic marriages to be invalid?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Hi Tomdstone, thanks for the post. These are interesting reasons to consider a marriage ended but I think they run into problems.

Firstly, you noted:

What I hear is that the first “marriage” was not really a valid marriage because the actions of the individual spouse indicate that he/she did not take his/her vows seriously.

If adultery by one spouse is a physical manifestation that there was never really a valid marriage because that spouse did not take his/her vows seriously, how do we view Jesus’ words: a man who looks at a woman to lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matt 5:28). Consequently, any man (or woman) who has such a lustful thought and is married has just evidenced that they are not really married. And what about other vows that are broken by married couples?

The Catholic Church is careful when assessing the validity of a marriage to see whether the couple were in their right mind when making their vows, not five years into the future.

As an addition to this, it was result in the rather ludicrous situation where I could feel secure in my conscience that I am not committing adultery against my wife by the very act of committing adultery (which would be fornication, technically, as I’m not really married).

I’m not sure what you mean by “the marriage has died”.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Do you think that 95% of all Roman Catholic marriages are invalid? Because in some areas less than 5% of those who apply for the annulment will not get it. More than 95% of those who apply will get it.

A good point, Tomdstone!

I’d just add a couple of things:
(1) Just because less than 5% of those who apply for annulments are refused, it doesn’t follow that 95% of the total of Catholic marriages are invalid. I’m not sure about the figures, but I’m assuming less than 3-4% of Catholics who are married apply for an annulment in the first place. This article: catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx claims that 60% of the global annulments come from the US, which only has about 6% of the global number of Catholics. What this might mean is for those who do apply for annulments, most have invalid marriages, but for those who do not apply, most have valid marriages.

(2) Annulments are not infallible, which means tribunals can make mistakes and think a marriage is null when it isn’t.

 

[Tomdstone]

(2) Annulments are not infallible, which means tribunals can make mistakes and think a marriage is null when it isn’t.

But what a mess that would be? Suppose that the tribunal declares the marriage null and one of the spouses remarries and has a child.
Then later on the Roman Rota overturns the annulment. What happens to the child of the second marriage in that case?

 

[jonathan_hili]

But what a mess that would be? Suppose that the tribunal declares the marriage null and one of the spouses remarries and has a child.
Then later on the Roman Rota overturns the annulment. What happens to the child of the second marriage in that case?

I suppose that’s why the tribunal tries to be as cautious as possible and presume all marriages valid. That could certainly be a consequential problem, but there doesn’t seem to be a logical one.

 

[Usagi]

But what a mess that would be? Suppose that the tribunal declares the marriage null and one of the spouses remarries and has a child.
Then later on the Roman Rota overturns the annulment. What happens to the child of the second marriage in that case?

It would be unwise in the extreme to marry if your nullity case had been sent to Rome and might not be granted. I don’t think Rome just “overturns” annulments years later without the people involved being aware that the process is ongoing.

As for the child, he or she would continue to exist as a valued creation of God, just as with any children of the first putative marriage. I am unsure what you mean by what would “happen” to them.

Usagi

 

[Gorgias]

Right. That is an interesting question. Generally, no, since a person may already be married and attempt a second marriage without informing his spouse to be. But I have one for you. Do you think that 95% of all Roman Catholic marriages are invalid? Because in some areas less than 5% of those who apply for the annulment will not get it. More than 95% of those who apply will get it.

I think you’re misusing the statistics, here, on two counts. First of all, your assertion about those “who apply for annulment” over-reaches. Secondly, the way you extrapolate the “95% of all Catholic marriages” number is invalid.

First, the notion of “those who apply for annulment” makes an invalid assumption; at the very least, it misrepresents the situation. The way you state it, it seems that you’re saying that 95% of those who approach the Church for an annulment, actually receive one. That’s not the way it works. Many begin the process, but don’t get any further than looking at the questionnaire. Of those who fill out the questionnaire, some get no further than speaking with their advocate or submitting the questionnaire; if the advocate or tribunal foresees that nothing would indicate that a positive decision will result, the petitioner is often advised that s/he should not continue the case onward (to a negative sentence). So, when you write “those who apply for annulment”, to whom are you referring? Those who request a questionnaire? Those who complete it? Those who submit the questionnaire? Those who proceed onward to the trial phase? Cause… if you’re talking about those who request a questionnaire… then “95%” is nowhere near an accurate number. In fact, to my experience, less than 1/3 of those who request a questionnaire actually fill it out. But, maybe you’re talking about those who actually fill it out? Again, you’ll lose some of these to attrition. On the other hand, maybe you’re speaking about those who actually bring the process to completion? I can’t speak to whether “95%” is the correct number – but, if you’re trying to say that 95% of the people who start the process actually get an annulment, then I can tell you that you’re off by at least a factor of 4. If you look at the number of people who start the process, it’s probably closer to 20-25% who end up with an annulment. Of course, that doesn’t come anywhere near to making the case you’re hoping to make…

But, let’s look at your question about whether 95% of Catholic marriages are invalid. This is an odd statement, and is a classic case of ‘selection bias.’ Let’s suppose that 95% of people who go to a chiropractor, actually have back problems. Would you, then, suggest that 95% of people in general have back problems? Of course not; after all, those who approach a chiropractor already suspect that they have back problems. Similarly, those who approach the Church, asking about an annulment, are already in the group that is more likely to have had an invalid marriage. (After all, all those who remain married are explicitly part of the group who aren’t in invalid marriages!) So, this presumption is invalid on its face.

Some people familiar with the process have said that with enough study, they can always find some reason or another to use to have a marriage annulled. There is even a webpage which specializes in helping people fill out the forms correctly so that it will be a whole lot easier for them to obtain the annulment.

Are you asking whether there are people out there who are attempting to game the process? I’m sure there are. Does that mean that the process is flawed, simply because some approach it dishonestly? Of course not.

 

[JohnGerard]

I gave you a possible interpretation which sets up a loophole to allow a second marriage after a divorce.

 

[Gorgias]

But what a mess that would be? Suppose that the tribunal declares the marriage null and one of the spouses remarries and has a child.
Then later on the Roman Rota overturns the annulment. What happens to the child of the second marriage in that case?

Wait – are you asking whether a Church wedding can take place while there’s an active appeal to a declaration of nullity?

Or, are you asking about ‘legitimacy’, vis-a-vis a child? That’s the easiest answer: the legitimacy of children does not depend on the legitimacy of the sacrament of marriage – in other words, ‘legitimacy’ is a civil matter. A child born to parents who are civilly married is a legitimate child. That is, your question is a non-starter: it’s not possible to be “illegitimate” if you’re born of a valid civil marriage.

 

[Tomdstone]

It would be unwise in the extreme to marry if your nullity case had been sent to Rome and might not be granted. I don’t think Rome just “overturns” annulments years later without the people involved being aware that the process is ongoing.

As for the child, he or she would continue to exist as a valued creation of God, just as with any children of the first putative marriage. I am unsure what you mean by what would “happen” to them.

Usagi

If the marriage annulment were overturned, the husband would have to go back to his original wife. Would the child follow him or would the child stay with his mother.

 

[Tomdstone]

Wait – are you asking whether a Church wedding can take place while there’s an active appeal to a declaration of nullity?

Suppose there is no active appeal immediately, but later on after a while.

 

[Tomdstone]

1. We can only have one valid marriage in our lives. To remarry a second time is to commit adultery…

I don’t think that this is true. Take for example, the case of a widow, whose husband has died. She can remarry a second time in the Catholic Church and there is no question of adultery.

 

[JohnGerard]

I don’t think that this is true. Take for example, the case of a widow, whose husband has died. She can remarry a second time in the Catholic Church and there is no question of adultery.

I stand corrected. You are right.

We can have more than one valid marriage in our lives. Paul says this in Romans 7:3: “…she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.”

I should have said that we can only have one valid marriage in our lives until one or the other spouse dies.

 

[Tomdstone]

I asked for interpretations of Jesus’ words about divorce and remarriage and you gave me one I had not heard of.

Thanks again and God bless you.

Your welcome. I am no authority either, but I am only trying to see how these things can be justified.

1. There is the commandment to love your neighbor, so I suppose it could be argued by the pro-divorce people, that when the marriage has died, it is difficult for the partners to remain in a loving relationship. So the only practical way of obeying the command of Jesus would be to divorce and remarry someone you did love.
2. Some of the words of Jesus are not to be taken literally, but only in a metaphorical or figurative sense. Take for example the following:
   a. Call no man Father. (But Catholics say it is justified to call a priest Father).
   b. Whoever comes to me and doesn’t hate father and mother, spouse and children, and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—cannot be my disciple.
   (But Catholics do not take this literally.)
   c. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
   So here are three examples of the words of Jesus and does anyone take them literally?
   Similarly it can be argued by the pro-divorce people that the words against divorce and remarriage are an ideal which cannot always be met for some unintended reason or another, depending on the specific case in question.
3. Further, there is the contention, by some in the Eastern Orthodox Church, that the early Greek Church allowed divorce and remarriage and Rome did not object.

 

[Gorgias]

1. There is the commandment to love your neighbor, so I suppose it could be argued by the pro-divorce people, that when the marriage has died, it is difficult for the partners to remain in a loving relationship. So the only practical way of obeying the command of Jesus would be to divorce and remarry someone you did love.

:nope: Nah… I call shenanigans on this one. Jesus castigates those who only love those who love them, and calls us to “love our enemies.” By that standard, we explicitly must love our ex-spouses, so the argument falls apart immediately.

1. Some of the words of Jesus are not to be taken literally, but only in a metaphorical or figurative sense. Take for example the following:
   a. Call no man Father. (But Catholics say it is justified to call a priest Father).

Paul called himself a spiritual father; are you saying that Catholics are wrong on this one?

b. Whoever comes to me and doesn’t hate father and mother, spouse and children, and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—cannot be my disciple.
(But Catholics do not take this literally.)

We absolutely take this literally! But… we take it literally in the way that the term was used in antiquity: as a comparative description. “Hate”, here, means “love less”.

c. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

How is this allegorical? If someone insults you, you should not demand satisfaction, but rather, forego those ‘rights’ to satisfaction and allow the insult to stand.

So here are three examples of the words of Jesus and does anyone take them literally?

Umm… yes.

Similarly it can be argued by the pro-divorce people

Given the analysis I’ve presented, “pro-divorce people” don’t present a reasonable argument.