Divorce and Matthew 19:9

[IrishAm]

If you must divorce because of an abusive situation, that’s unfortunately but probably unavoidable. Yet obtaining the Church’s consent for you to remarry is not your absolute right even if the divorce wasn’t your fault. Also consider, if you have children, it is probably best to concentrate your attention on them rather than finding a new spouse.

Excuse me while I scream. (Now I feel much better.) The seeking of the Church’s determination on the validity of one’s marriage (“getting an annulment” – or not, as the case may be) is NOT necessarily because one is seeking a new spouse. It is about knowing where one stands. About being able to be open to God’s will – if His will is to introduce a permanent partner that you can marry with our Church’s blessing; or being able to move forward in the knowledge that one is bound to a flawed partner who has chosen to abandon his/her sacramental obligation or to whom one has had to depart in order to protect and defend self or children.

While going through my process with the Marriage Tribunal, the one thing that drove me absolutely up a wall is that, with every “update,” the Diocese reminded me that I could not plan a marriage in the Church until the annulment process was complete. I, in turn, kept reminding them I did not have a man in the wings . . . I just wanted to know that, should one arrive, I could move forward in good faith in the relationship.

Sorry for the rant . . .

 

[Janet_S]

Excuse me while I scream. (Now I feel much better.) The seeking of the Church’s determination on the validity of one’s marriage (“getting an annulment” – or not, as the case may be) is NOT necessarily because one is seeking a new spouse. It is about knowing where one stands. About being able to be open to God’s will – if His will is to introduce a permanent partner that you can marry with our Church’s blessing; or being able to move forward in the knowledge that one is bound to a flawed partner who has chosen to abandon his/her sacramental obligation or to whom one has had to depart in order to protect and defend self or children.

While going through my process with the Marriage Tribunal, the one thing that drove me absolutely up a wall is that, with every “update,” the Diocese reminded me that I could not plan a marriage in the Church until the annulment process was complete. I, in turn, kept reminding them I did not have a man in the wings . . . I just wanted to know that, should one arrive, I could move forward in good faith in the relationship.

Sorry for the rant . . .

I’m not sure why you’re so upset, but please recall the topic of this thread is about divorce and remarriage, not about annulments per se. I wasnt’ claiming that everyone who seeks an annulment does it for the sole purpose of remarriage.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Excuse me while I scream. …
Sorry for the rant . . .

I understand you completely. I am glad you were able to advance your issue to a state of peace. I have this feeling you sat in the pew looked at the tabernacle and said “why, why, how does this help anybody, Why is it this way?” Somehow I feel this went on for hours.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I would charge that adultery is cause for divorce when the adulterer/ess has no intention of repentance.

I see what you are saying, but the Bible does not teach that.

The reason is to protect the faithful spouse and children. I would not stay with an adulterer because he could catch a disease and pass it on, not only to me, but to our children. There are many STD’s today that are easily passed from one person to another without sexual contact.

Again, I see what you are saying, but if your marriage is valid your duty at that point would be to hopefully find another place to live, that does not however give you or your spouse the right to another marriage.

As for remarriage, I think the last line may support the Catholic position: “anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

This indicates that even tho the husband had legitimate grounds for divorcing, at least the woman is still bound by the marriage vows. Doesn’t really make sense unless the husband is also still bound.

Yes. The point is the institution is permanent, the “woman” mentioned above (or husband) is not free to remarry. The only time remarriage is allowed is if the spouse dies or if the spouse was never a Christian and abandons you.

The bigger picture is that having only one sexual partner protects us for all sorts of heartache. The number of STD’s today and the number of men and women killing their ex’s bears strong testimony that God’s way is best.

Agreed. Not just STDs but just look at all the homes that are destroyed and ripped apart, single mothers, step parents/children, etc. It is a sad picture…:crying:

 

[Ginger2]

Just goes to show…Catholics and protestants can agree - once in awhile.

I will take issue on the non-Christian divorce. Isn’t there a verse in the Bible that says the non-believing spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse.

 

[FrankLawrence]

Just goes to show…Catholics and protestants can agree - once in awhile.

I will take issue on the non-Christian divorce. Isn’t there a verse in the Bible that says the non-believing spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse.

You are referring to 1 Corinthians 7:14. Not sure what the verse means.

 

[daeve]

I agree with Ginger that adultery is cause for divorce. But divorce and remarriage are two separate issues. There Church understands that some living situtations cannot be tolerated and allows one to get out of that situation. But that doesn’t break the permanent bond of matrimony.

I am amazed, however, how many Catholic friends and relatives ask me if I’m dating anyone. Why open yourself to tempation and potential unhappiness? And you can read that sentence anyway you want, because I think I mean it every way you can interpret it.