Divorce and Communion

[NewEnglandPriest]

Hello Father NewEnglandPries, (I apologize, I didn’t realize that you were a priest… although the “pries” showing should have been a good clue!)

No problem, I didn’t notice my chosen screen name doesn’t fit until after registration. LOL.

Yes, it is more accurate to say that when a decision made by American tribunals that a marriage never existed based on psychological grounds is reviewed by the Roman Rota, the Roman Rota finds that the decision was wrong 80-90% of the time.

We need a little clarification here. There could be some misunderstandings going on. For an annulment decision to be reached there needs to be 2 Tribunals that find the marriage null. If the Roma Rota was used as the 2nd Tribunal then there is no overturning of an annulment because one was never issued. Just because the 1st Tribunal finds the marriage null does not mean the 2nd Tribunal will. So any “statistical analysis” focusing on Rome overturning annulments would have to make that distinction.

The sample size, however, is more than a “handful.” The cases reviewed provide, I believe, an adequate sample size, statistically speaking. If you doubt that, and if I get time, I’ll do the statistical analysis.

I’d be surprised if a statistically relevant number of cases went to Rome each year. I’m not saying its not true, I’d just be surprised.

It makes it sound like there are cases when you know with certainty that reunion is not going to happen. Can you know for certain that reunion is not going to happen in a particular marriage? How can you know this with certainty?

Well there’s different kinds of certainty. There’s scientific certainty, there’s moral certainty, and then we have practical reasoning certainty. Nothing can ever really be known with 100% certainty.
In life we have to make prudent judgments and go from there…

Do you think that Blessed Pope John Paul II meant that priests, or any of us, have the gift to be able to determine with certainty that a particular couple, say a modern day Hosea and Gomer, will never reconcile?

The Holy Father was recognizing that there are individuals who will never reunite. That’s just a fact.

Please don’t see this as trying to argue or start a fight here. I have just personally heard priests (a few priests, so hopefully it isn’t representative of most priests) state that civil divorce is proof that reconciliation will never happen. This gives civil divorce a false power… a power it really does not have… and helps to prevent the reconciliation of spouses.

No, I am not saying that a civil divorce, alone, in and of itself, is proof that a couple will never reunite. But it is a clue.

The whole issue in America about needing to obtain a civil divorce before pursuing a declaration of nullity… where is this a requirement in Canon law? Is it in the Catechism?

Due to varying laws throughout the world, canon law does not address this directly. We need to remember that canon law wasn’t written just for the USA but for the entire world.

However, because canon law requires ecclesiastical judges to determine whether there is any reasonable prospect of reconciling estranged couples before hearing their annulment cases (c. 1676), petitions for declarations of matrimonial nullity are rarely accepted by diocesan tribunals unless the civil divorce of the parties is final. The civil divorce in and of itself is not the sole determining factor that a marriage is irreconcilable but it is the first piece of the puzzle.

Fred and Wilma are validly married and not civilly divorced.
Barney and Betty are validly married and are civilly divorced.
Can Barney “chastely see other people” in a way that Fred cannot “chastely see other people?” If so, in what ways can Barney do this? And, what action freed Barney to do this? Is Barney freed to no longer love Betty as Christ loves the Church?

According to the Church, yes. As previously mentioned, the Church does have what’s called the “brother/sister” provision for such circumstances. That doesn’t mean its wise to do so, but the Church does foresee its possibility.

May God bless you Father, again, please do not view this as hostile towards you. Our mutual goal, I’m sure, is the salvation of souls… this life is so very short!

Indeed, the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church!

 

[FrDavid96]

…
The whole issue in America about needing to obtain a civil divorce before pursuing a declaration of nullity… where is this a requirement in Canon law? Is it in the Catechism?
…

Just to add to what NewEnglandPries has already posted.

There is a good reason why the Church does not hear petitions for nullity until after a civil divorce (or civil annulment). Remember that marriage, is also a civil contract in the law. If that civil contract exists under the laws of the state, the Church would be violating the law by saying that it never happened.

Take a different example. I buy a house. The seller and I go through all the legal necessities and we make a contract of sale. That’s legally binding. Let’s say that afterwards I assert that the contract was null and void for some reason, and therefore I am entitled to get my money back. Who gets to decide if it was in fact a binding contract? Only the state can do that. If the Church started issuing documents declaring home sales to be null-and-void we’d be in a pretty big mess.

It’s the same with marriages. If the marriage exists under the laws of the state, then the Church cannot declare otherwise (with some very rare exceptions), because to do so would be interfering in the government’s ability to regulate the legality of a marriage. The Church cannot usurp the states’s authority to regulate marriage as a legal institution.

That’s why the Church waits until the state has declared that the marriage does not legally exist, either by divorce or civil annulment, before considering a petition for sacramental nullity.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Fathers, hope you both are well…

For anyone who would like a revealing look at the handling of annulments in America please read the late Robert Vasoli’s *What God Hath Joined Together: The Annulment Crisis in American Catholicism *We can discuss this further. We could pick up on the discussion of our American annulment system in a little while… maybe a different thread.

I’ll try to focus in on the teaching that seems to be occurring here that somehow I am freed to start “seeing” other women after I civilly divorce my wife. Using the example provided.

Fred and Wilma are validly married and not civilly divorced.
Barney and Betty are validly married and are civilly divorced.

1. Can Barney “chastely see other people” in a way that Fred cannot “chastely see other people?”
2. If so, in what ways can Barney do this that Fred cannot?
3. Also, what action freed Barney to now be able to “chastely see other people” in a way that he previously could not?
4. Is Barney freed to no longer love Betty as Christ loves the Church? Wouldn’t this love include fidelity of one’s heart and an openness to reconciliation upon true repentance?
5. What does Barney tell little Pebbles and Bam Bam when they ask, “Daddy, I thought you and mommy were married? The Church teaches us that divorce does not make you unmarried. Why are you going out to dinner with that other woman?”

Fathers, please, no disrespect. I have just read your messages on here and grieve for the abandoned husbands and wives and their children who are faithfully praying for the return of the spouse or parent who has torn apart their marriage with a civil divorce. I correspond with a number of these abandoned spouses who are following Christ and faithfully carrying their crosses and modeling for their children the Truth of the indissolubility of marriage.

How encouraged do you believe these abandoned spouses are when they hear that priests are telling their abandoning spouses who are dating other people…

“If a divorce person did not have an annulment, was dating, and was in a public position for the parish I would strongly encourage them to begin the annulment process.”

How encouraged will their children be to continue their prayers every night that their mommies and daddies choose to love one another and put their families back together.

A week and a half ago I had a 7 year old boy tell me, “God doesn’t hear my prayers.” You see, for 4 years now this boy has prayed for his family to be put back together. One of his parents had an affair and abandoned the marriage and filed for civil divorce.

This boy shouldn’t have to grow up and learn that there were priests telling his parent (who is now dating some other person) the message quoted above. That will not help him come back to the Faith. Please pray for him (Eli) and his family.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

[edited]

 

[joanofarc2008]

In all honesty and I am going to be a little crass here and make an analogy jump where the rubber hits the road - but how many people that are just Sunday Mass going Catholics and are not involved in ministry going to actually maintain chaste dating relationships. So no offense FCGeorge but I think that your arguments are very theoretical. I think that most adults that have been married and have experienced sex as well as the emotional tumult of a divorce will probably find a chaste dating relationship difficult at first. It is not something that has been the norm for a while. The norm has been a very intimate sexual relationship with a spouse. It takes more than a once a week Mass to be able to find that Grace. It takes things like ministry, frequent use of the Sacraments, and fellowship not to allow that loneliness to set in. This is my opinion but I think it is also one of the reasons that “rebound relationships” are so common.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

[edited] Divorced individuals who are chastely “dating” do not have any canonical restrictions on their reception of communion. That question has been answered and given the tone of what I quoted above tells me its time to end this conversation.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello Joanofarc,

I think we agree there. That is why it does not make sense for the civilly divorced person who seeks guidance to be told anything less than, “I love you and desire that you spend eternity with our Lord in the eternal wedding feast of Heaven. You are still a married person and cannot be in a relationship that a married person should not be in.”

When someone is giving their heart to someone other than their spouse then the devil has them right where he wants them. Their feelings and emotions become a fertile field for more lies to be planted.

God Bless You Joanofarc,

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

I’m sorry Father, I certainly didn’t mean to say that I know you one of the priests that St. John talked about. If I could edit that part of the post I would remove that quote. I’m running to pick up my kids now but tonight I’ll try to do it.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

Our Blessed Lord taught “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

Can you imagine the Pharisees response, “I can see nothing in our law that says that you may not *look *lustfully! Our law only says that you may not commit the act of adultery!”
Our Blessed Lord was revealing for them (and us) that God judges by what is in the heart.

There is no way that a married man should be doing anything after a civil divorce that he shouldn’t have been doing before a civil divorce. Some civil judge signing some piece of paper and recording it in some book of civil records has absolutely no power to “free” him to stop loving his wife. It has absolutely no power to “free” him to stop being faithful to his wife. It has absolutely no power to “free” him to stop laying down his life for his wife. It has absolutely no power to “free” him to start “dating” other women.

Our Catechism defines divorce for us:
DIVORCE: The claim that the indissoluble marriage bond validly entered into between a man and a woman is broken. A civil dissolution of the marriage contract (divorce) does not free persons from a valid marriage before God; remarriage would not be morally licit (2382; cf. 1650).
Notice the first part of this definition, “The claim.” Where does this “claim” happen in us? It happens in the heart. When I claim in my heart to no longer be the husband of my wife then I am a “divorcer.”

Just as the one who lusts for another in his heart is already an adulterer before the sexual act occurs. Just as the one who hates his brother so much that he would like him dead is already a murderer before pulling the trigger. So it is with divorce. When I claim in my heart to no longer be married then I am a “divorcer.” Whether the act of a civil divorce has occurred or not, I am guilty of the sin of divorce if I consider myself no longer married to the one to whom God joined me.

This doesn’t mean that the civil divorce itself is not gravely sinful. Just as it doesn’t mean that the adulterous sexual act and the shooting of the gun are not sinful. There are certain times when a civil divorce could be morally licit, just as there are certain times when killing someone could be morally licit.

But it is ALWAYS sinful… “gravely” sinful because marriage is so very good… to claim in my heart to no longer be married to the one to whom God joined me in a valid marriage. It is saying, “God You joined me to her, but I say I am no longer joined to her!” Just as it is ALWAYS gravely sinful to hate someone in your heart so much that you want them dead. It is gravely sinful because human life is so very good.

I do not understand how one could rationalize, “Yes, I love and am faithful to my Heavenly Bridegroom but I am free to “date” someone other than my earthly bridegroom.” We simply cannot be faithful to our Heavenly Bridegroom without being faithful to our earthly bridegroom.

When we are not faithful, in our heart, to our earthly bridegroom then we should not be partaking of the very Body and Blood of our Heavenly Bridegroom in the Blessed Sacrament.

Again, I do not know everything, even though I may try to act like it on here. I haven’t been to school like the priests and many theologians have been. I simply love our Blessed Lord and pray daily the prayer of St. Francis (the prayer given to me after my first Confession a few years ago) that He will give me the humility to be nothing more than His instrument for the eternal salvation of souls.

Our Holy Father has shined His brilliant light on what he calls a “false charity.” I personally have seen this. It is a “love” that many practice that is focused on helping each another “feel better” in this life. The problem, however, is that it sacrifices Truth for that end. “Dating” someone other than my wife may help me “feel better” on this earth but it sacrifices the Truth that I am to have a heart that is always faithful to my wife.

I was blessed with a faithful priest who would have nothing to do with all of my rationalizations as to why I could “see” or “date” someone other than my wife. I thank God for him. And simply try to pass along the message delivered by God through him.

I sincerely apologize if my tone is sometimes too harsh. Many are now turning our Father’s house of marriage into a meat market and that makes me very angry. I try to properly discern when it is best to flip over tables and use the whip or when it is best to gently guide those who are at the well and are open to hearing the Truth. If only I were God made flesh, then I could do that balancing act perfectly too!

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Bryan - I think your tone was very disrespectful to the clergy on here. I do not see them turning God’s house into a “meat market for God.” I simply hope that you will never be in a position to try to understand what much of this discussion entails. It is not as black and white as you make it seem. God bless you and good luck on your recent conversion.

 

[FCGeorge]

Joanofarc,

Thank you for letting me know that. I am tone-deaf at times. I certainly mean no disrepect towards the priests on here.

I think, as Father NE noted, we can “exchange thoughts and ideas”, and even challenge one another on them. I’ll try to do so in a more respectful way.

There is an idea being floated that a married person can “date” someone other than his wife after he gets a civil divorce. I am challenging that idea. If things are somehow “grey” on this then please explain why they are “grey.”

What frees Barney, in the example given, to start dating?

Does the civil divorce mean that he is to no longer be faithful to his wife?

I pray you find these questions valid questions. If the idea is somehow true then these questions should have answers. The point of asking them is to reveal that when we look at the heart instead of the letter of Canon law, there is no way a married person can start “dating” someone other than his wife… even after a civil divorce. Unless, that is, *all *married people can “date” someone else and still be remaining faithful to their wives and able to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

I have the utmost respect for the priesthood. Priests stand in the Person of Christ. Our God forgives sin through them. A priest was God’s primary instrument for bringing me to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. A priest was God’s primary instrument for helping me to see the lie that all of my Protestant friends and family and most of my “Catholic” friends were trying to help me believe… that I was freed to date other women. I am simply trying to pass this on… for the sake of other souls.

God bless you JoanofArc,

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[joanofarc2008]

Joanofarc,

Thank you for letting me know that. I am tone-deaf at times. I certainly mean no disrepect towards the priests on here.

I think, as Father NE noted, we can “exchange thoughts and ideas”, and even challenge one another on them. I’ll try to do so in a more respectful way.

There is an idea being floated that a married person can “date” someone other than his wife after he gets a civil divorce. I am challenging that idea. If things are somehow “grey” on this then please explain why they are “grey.”

What frees Barney, in the example given, to start dating?

Does the civil divorce mean that he is to no longer be faithful to his wife?

I pray you find these questions valid questions. If the idea is somehow true then these questions should have answers. The point of asking them is to reveal that when we look at the heart instead of the letter of Canon law, there is no way a married person can start “dating” someone other than his wife… even after a civil divorce. Unless, that is, *all *married people can “date” someone else and still be remaining faithful to their wives and able to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

I have the utmost respect for the priesthood. Priests stand in the Person of Christ. Our God forgives sin through them. A priest was God’s primary instrument for bringing me to the Truth of the Catholic Faith. A priest was God’s primary instrument for helping me to see the lie that all of my Protestant friends and family and most of my “Catholic” friends were trying to help me believe… that I was freed to date other women. I am simply trying to pass this on… for the sake of other souls.

God bless you JoanofArc,

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

Basically because as the priests have nicely told you it is not a decision someone has made on their own. It would be a decision that they would make pastorally with their priest based on the strength of their case. A marriage does not become invalid at the day of the decree of nullity. It always was. It is only the decision that is being waited on. In some of these dioceses this can take years. For the married person there is no question of the validity of that marriage. For the divorced person there most certainly is.

 

[figs]

A priest was God’s primary instrument for helping me to see the lie that all of my Protestant friends and family and most of my “Catholic” friends were trying to help me believe… that I was freed to date other women. I am simply trying to pass this on… for the sake of other souls.

Your shoes (your circumstances and solutions) are not meant fit everyone’s feet

 

[dochawk]

Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, it is more accurate to say that when a decision made by American tribunals that a marriage never existed based on psychological grounds is reviewed by the Roman Rota, the Roman Rota finds that the decision was wrong 80-90% of the time. The sample size, however, is more than a “handful.” The cases reviewed provide, I believe, an adequate sample size, statistically speaking. If you doubt that, and if I get time, I’ll do the statistical analysis.

But that wouldn’t be valid, either. That wouldn’t be an analysi of America CDs. But american cases that are appealed. It is unlikely that the tow groups are statistically similar, unless appeal is itself an independent random event.

Ok, it’s not like I haves Ph.D. in statistics. Oh, wait. . . .

(putting the “doc” back into . . . )

dochawk

 

[FCGeorge]

A marriage does not become invalid at the day of the decree of nullity. It always was. It is only the decision that is being waited on. In some of these dioceses this can take years. For the married person there is no question of the validity of that marriage. For the divorced person there most certainly is.

Good morning joanofarc, hope you are well. Yes, certainly, either two people were married on their wedding day or they entered into formal adultery or formal fornication (assuming a sexual relationship). There is an objective Truth there. God joined them into one flesh or He did not. Which is why I do not understand why the civil divorce somehow tells us we should start wondering if the marriage was valid? Is it because our hearts cease to be freed from our vows? If it is because we really want to know if we are married, why didn’t we really want to know that before? Is it because we now long to be with someone else?

We have priests “pastorally guiding” Catholics to conclude that they can use birth control as long as they pray about it and determine it is right for them. How confident would you and your priest need to be to determine that you are free to date other people. Should an 80% confidence level free me to date? Would it take take 95%? 99.9%?

It seems like many are approaching the annulment process with a heart that is “seeking an annulment” rather than “seeking the truth.” This seems dangerous.

It is like the many Protestants who I have talked to who have “prayed about it and talked through it with their pastor” and concluded that they can divorce and marry someone else because of A, B and C. Of course the Holy Spirit is not guiding them to this choice… for it is adultery. Rather, they are seeking the freedom to be in a new relationship and start to mold a god in their own image, a god who desires their happiness before their holiness.

As we can make Christ more us-like, we need less to become more Christ-like.

Sometimes I am very slow to learn lessons. Maybe a concrete example will help. Maybe if you provide a hypothetical situation with names and circumstances that lead to the conclusion that a person is freed to start dating after their particular civil divorce then I would understand better. Thanks.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[FCGeorge]

But that wouldn’t be valid, either. That wouldn’t be an analysi of America CDs. But american cases that are appealed. It is unlikely that the tow groups are statistically similar, unless appeal is itself an independent random event.

Ok, it’s not like I haves Ph.D. in statistics. Oh, wait. . . .

(putting the “doc” back into . . . )

dochawk

Great stuff dochawk, I have only had a few courses in the subject… maybe I’ll let you do the analysis… it would take me digging up the old books. But, I think I only claimed that the sample size was adequate. I didn’t claim that it is representative. I am willing to listen to your reasoning for why you think it would not be representative. (I.E. the cases appealed to the Roman Rota are different than the cases not appealed because…?)

Why do the vast majority of respondents not appeal to Rome? I believe that the vast majority of respondents simply do not care what the Church has to say, or they too want the annulment so they can legalize their own adulterous relationship or they simply do not know that they can appeal to Rome to defend their marriage.

80%-90% of the American cases that are appealed to the Roman Rota after receiving a null verdict on ‘psychological’ grounds are overturned. The American tribunal said “you are not married” but the Roman Rota said “you are married.”

Perhaps you could make a case as to why we should then have confidence in the remainder of the verdicts of the American tribunals on the new and ever-popular “psychological grounds.”

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

either two people were married on their wedding day or they entered into formal adultery or formal fornication (assuming a sexual relationship). There is an objective Truth there.

Um no, its not “formal adultery or formal fornication” its called a putative marriage.

 

[FCGeorge]

Your shoes (your circumstances and solutions) are not meant fit everyone’s feet

The awesome thing is, however, that the shoes of Truth do fit everyone’s feet… although many do not want to put them on.

I am willing to learn from an example of when it could be morally licit to start dating someone after a civil divorce and before a marriage is found never to have existed.

I have been wrong a time or two before and could be wrong on this.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

 

[figs]

The awesome thing is, however, that the shoes of Truth do fit everyone’s feet… although many do not want to put them on.

I am willing to learn from an example of when it could be morally licit to start dating someone after a civil divorce and before a marriage is found never to have existed.

I have been wrong a time or two before and could be wrong on this.

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING

You don’t think it’s ever come up where a spouse of the divorced couple married again to someone else, leaving the the original spouce out there, alone?
I would think that would be an example.
Since waiting for a decision from the Church can take years, and the state only recognises civil marriages and divorces, the original spouse is left high and dry.

You can’t say, ‘oh, the original lonely spouse should try and reconcile.’ Remember, the second marriage is valid to the state and the newly married couple can file harrassment charges.

Life just isn’t all perfect, one size fits all, like you’d like it to be.
You can argue with me and others till your fingers fall off but your unyeilding view gets you no where with anyone.

Unfortunately YOUR situation is NOT the SAME situation other people go through. What happened to you, happened to you. The remedy that was advised to you, fit you alone.

 

[joanofarc2008]

It seems like many are approaching the annulment process with a heart that is “seeking an annulment” rather than “seeking the truth.” This seems dangerous.

It seems like NewEnglandPries already handled the definition of a putative marriage verses your “formal adultery” issue.

I will not touch your priests guiding people to use birth control as it is again disrespectful and out of context and off subject for this thread. However I will say that while I agree that contraception is wrong it would do you well to learn a little history of Humanae Vitae before throwing around these kinds of comments.

Third - no, people do not seek annulment rather than seek the truth. Sometimes the truth is that obvious. For instance lets take my case. I found my xh’s psych records after the separation. The pre-Cana counseling record reflects him saying that he has never been diagnosed with these types of issues. His personality disorder lead to the break up of our marriage that really never was valid. At this point based on a very cold objective truth I am waiting on two decisions. I know it is invalid. So do most of the workers at the tribunal and my advocate. I make the choices I do because of my involvement in public ministry. I have also made two moves since my separation - one after my divorce. Very few at my parish now even know I am divorced. It just has not come up. The people that have become close do. I was in a putative marriage yes. I was an invalid marriage which thank God is over. Now I am in the long drawn out process of having the Church recognize what God already knows which by the way is probably why Pope Benedict XVI himself has called for a more speedy resolution to these cases.

Now to answer your other point the sampling of those cases that go to Rome are only problem cases and therefore would expect an appeal of some kind. For instance if my case were apealled before it ever went to Rome it would have to be appealed first in the court of second instance and they would have to find cause to send it to Rome. So only the cases that have cause for appeal are going to Rome. Therefore that number is a worse than random sampling it is a selected sampling based on a problematic cases.

 

[FCGeorge]

Hello all, hope you all are well!

Is there any disagreement over the following premises?

1. There is an objective truth that I am either married or not married.
2. If I am not married and I am having a sexual relationship with a woman then that sexual relationship is outside of marriage.
3. If I am married and having a sexual relationship with someone other than my wife then that sexual relationship is adultery and should end.
4. If I am not married and am having a sexual relationship with someone then that sexual relationship is fornication and should end.

If Carol and Bob are two baptized Christians and they get married. 7 years later Carol abandons Bob and finalizes a divorce. She says that he does not love her the way that she feels she deserves to be loved. She says that he is not capable of loving her the way that she deserves to be loved. Carol, who has three girls, all of them have hair of gold, just like her mother, then goes on to “marry” Mike. Mike’s wife had passed away and he was busy with three boys of his own. They were four men living all together, but they were all alone.

All of Carol’s friends and Mike’s friends, many professing to be Christians, feel very sorry for Mike and Carol. They just know that they are all alone and each “in need” of someone. So they set Mike and Carol up. Everyone *knew *that it more than a hunch that this group must somehow form a family.

Mike and Carol celebrate their wedding!

Just because Mike and Carol believe that they are validly married, does this make their marriage a valid marriage? Does it make it a “putative marriage?” Or, are our Blessed Lord’s words true and this is “adultery?”

Now, I can see your point and I understand the term “putative marriage.” If Carol lied to Mike and told her that she never had married before. Mike *had no reasonable way of knowing *that she really had married someone already… that she is already one flesh with some other man…then Mike would not be guilty of adultery as long as he never does find out. In this case, there is an objective reality that God has not joined Mike and Carol into one flesh. However, Mike is not aware of this. This would still be what St. Augustine called an “adulterous remarriage” for Carol. Our Blessed Lord called it “adultery.” Mark 10:12And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

If Mike does one day find out that Carol really did marry someone else then he would be guilty of adultery if he remains in the adulterous remarriage. Mike should therefore separate… assuming eternal life with our Lord is the number one goal.

Getting back on topic… Has Carol, in this example, ever truly repented of the “grave offense” of divorce? What would her repentance look like?

Let’s say that Bob does indeed see the Truth of the indissolubility of marriage and faithfully awaits Carol’s “coming to her senses” as the father did for the prodigal son. Let’s say that the three girls, the youngest one in curls, faithfully pray every night for their family to be put back together.

Or, lets say that Bob runs off to California and tells Carol, “I will never forgive you!” Does this free Carol to no longer be faithful to Bob?

Bryan

LOVE SO AMAZING