Divorce and Remarriage

[mardukm]

Dear brother Jimmy,

The Catholic Church does not recognize civil marriages, civil divorces or civil annulments.

Though the Catholic Church does not recognize civil marriages, she requires certificates of civil divorce or civil annulment before a Declaration of Nullity can be finalized.

The requirement of these civil certificates is for two purposes:

1. To ensure the intention of the parties to no longer have marital relations.
2. If children are involved, to ensure that their needs will be provided for.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jimmy_B]

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lasvegas/gallery/images/g_08.jpg
Who are we kidding here?

No difference huh?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Dear brother Jimmy,

Though the Catholic Church does not recognize civil marriages, she requires certificates of civil divorce or civil annulment before a Declaration of Nullity can be finalized.

The requirement of these civil certificates is for two purposes:

1. To ensure the intention of the parties to no longer have marital relations.
2. If children are involved, to ensure that their needs will be provided for.

Blessings,
Marduk

True, that’s part of it… Thank you.

 

[Nine_Two]

I order of strictness:

1. Catholic Church
2. Oriental Orthodox Church
3. EO - original four Patriarchates
4. EO - Patriarchates within the former USSR
5. Protestants

Blessings

While I’m not familiar with the OO marriage rules, a quick look seems to show that they are stricter than the Catholic Church. I’m curious why you ordered it like that?

 

[Nine_Two]

Hello Nine_Two,

I have read you posted article and I understand where your coming from but I think that those articles just prove my point that the Catholic Church is strict when it comes to marriage and divorce. Those articles show that the Pope is on top of this issue, right? Additionally, wouldn’t you agree that the Orthodox Church, which is part of the Catholic Church, is also strict when it comes to marriage and divorce, especially when compared to many non-Catholic Christian denominations… especially those that have only been around for 50-70 years or so?

Where are the news articles regarding the Protestant response to marriage and divorce, other than the fairly recent news regarding a non-Catholic Christian denomination that promoted an opening gay man to the rank of Bishop and those non-Catholic Christian denominations that approve of homosexual marriage?

Thank you for your post.

I didn’t post the articles, BW did, but yes, I agree that the rules themselves are stricter, and that many Protestants don’t think much of divorce and remarriage.

 

[Jimmy_B]

While I’m not familiar with the OO marriage rules, a quick look seems to show that they are stricter than the Catholic Church. I’m curious why you ordered it like that?

Hi,
I found this on The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church Of Egypt website (here). I hope this helps

Divorce is not allowed except in the case of adultery, annulment due to bigamy, or other extreme circumstances, which must be reviewed by a special council of Bishops. Divorce can be requested by either husband or wife. Civil divorce is not recognized by the Church. The Coptic Orthodox Church does not have and does not mind any civil law of the land as long as it does not interfere with the Church’s sacraments.

I believe that the Coptic Church falls into Oriental Orthodoxy. Please correct me if I’m wrong .

 

[Jimmy_B]

I didn’t post the articles, BW did, but yes, I agree that the rules themselves are stricter, and that many Protestants don’t think much of divorce and remarriage.

Yep, you’re right, I went back and read the posts and BW said “I think Nine Two was referring to…”. Sorry about that.

 

[Araninski]

Not to offend anyone but an “Annulment” is just the same like divorce…
If the marriage was consumed both male and female involved in this ceremony agreed to get married, they are married. Then an “Annulment” says they were never married in the first place, so its okay if they separated, no divorce. And then you can get married again. Yeah this is very “strict”.

The only view of divorce or “annulment” that all Christians should have is that of Matthew 19:9

" I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

For any other problem the couple is having they should not seek an “Annulment” or a divorce because it is sin, they should try to resolve their problems through Jesus, like the good Christians they should be, always forgiving themselves for there faults. And if they can reconcile, well it stays like that until they reconcile or forever.

Mark 10:6-9
“But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Once the marriage is consumed they are one flesh and no “annulment” that recognizes them as if “they were never married” should happen, because they are already joined together. The same goes for divorce, unless the case of adultery.

I know this couple who have been married for about 20 years, their last 5 years of marriage haven’t been so great, the husband had drinking problems, and other problems of not attending Church regularly, but the wife had been so patient. She could have seek a “divorce” or “annulment” because obviously they had problems,“and they were not meant for each other”, but she knows that is a sin. Thanks God, her patience has paid off and now the husband is returning to the Lord, he has quit drinking beer, he is doing his best to attend Church regularly. What I am trying to say once you get married you know that responsibility is great. So think about it when you are getting married. If the marriage is not working, make it work through Jesus, He will heal the matrimony if the couple is with Him.

This is one of the reasons I stop from being Catholic too, this “doctrine” of “annulment” makes no sense as well as others.

God bless.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not to offend anyone but an “Annulment” is just the same like divorce…
If the marriage was consumed both male and female involved in this ceremony agreed to get married, they are married. Then an “Annulment” says they were never married in the first place, so its okay if they separated, no divorce. And then you can get married again. Yeah this is very “strict”.

The only view of divorce or “annulment” that all Christians should have is that of Matthew 19:9

" I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

For any other problem the couple is having they should not seek an “Annulment” or a divorce because it is sin, they should try to resolve their problems through Jesus, like the good Christians they should be, always forgiving themselves for there faults. And if they can reconcile, well it stays like that until they reconcile or forever.

Mark 10:6-9
“But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one.Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

Once the marriage is consumed they are one flesh and no “annulment” that recognizes them as if “they were never married” should happen, because they are already joined together. The same goes for divorce, unless the case of adultery.

I know this couple who have been married for about 20 years, their last 5 years of marriage haven’t been so great, the husband had drinking problems, and other problems of not attending Church regularly, but the wife had been so patient. She could have seek a “divorce” or “annulment” because obviously they had problems,“and they were not meant for each other”, but she knows that is a sin. Thanks God, her patience has paid off and now the husband is returning to the Lord, he has quit drinking beer, he is doing his best to attend Church regularly. What I am trying to say once you get married you know that responsibility is great. So think about it when you are getting married. If the marriage is not working, make it work through Jesus, He will heal the matrimony if the couple is with Him.

God bless.

You wrote-
*This is one of the reasons I stop from being Catholic too, this “doctrine” of “annulment” makes no sense as well as others. *

How would this affect you if you don’t have multi-marriages? How would this affect your Catholicism? If your marriage was in order… and I’m not asking if it was or was not, then it would not, or should not affect your faith, right? (generally speaking)

God bless you too!

 

[Vico]

There are tons of divorces being sanctioned in the Catholic Church but they’re under the guise of “annulments.” Annulments are basically a declaration that a valid marriage never existed. How often does that REALLY happen?

And as far as birth control goes, most Catholics use it, upwards of 90%.

What you are saying is that the Church is declaring large numbers of marriages that are really true sacramental marriages, as defective from the start. I did read an article from 1995 (link below), stating that the Vatican objects to the number of tribunal annulments being declared and that it is a grave scandal. It is defective matrimonial consent which is the ground for more than two thirds of annulments in the United States, and this is the problem type of annulment. 1968 had 400 formal annulments granted in the USA. Since 1984 there have been 59,000 recorded annulments annually.

nytimes.com/books/first/v/vasoli-joined.html

It is really tragic about all the people using birth control for it means they do not accept the Church teaching, thus proclaiming: “I’m on the highway to hell.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**This is a loop hole mentality. Go get married civilly and you can let the good times role, get tired of the person, dump 'em, then go get a “Church” marriage, get the old one declared null because it wasn’t in the Church, start all over again. Sow some oats. Not something I can imagine Our Lord looking on with much approval. He hated loop hole mentalities.

As to your 90% hypothesis, about as un-scientific and speculative as one can get. **

Dear brother Gurney,
The statistics for annulments are high, but there is something about that statistic which no one has ever brought up (as far as I’ve seen). I think everyone understands and accepts that the Church (Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever) does not accept civil marriages as valid marriages. I mean, is anyone really so obtuse as to use the canard “annulments are just divorces in disguise” in such a circumstance?

The fact of the matter is, the statistics for annulments include all those people who have never had a church marriage (but only a civil marriage), and ends up wanting to marry someone else later on in the Church. I can imagine that perhaps 90% of annulments are for this reason. In the Catholic Church, though a prior civil marriage is naturally invalid, a declaration of nullity is still required. This results in an explosion in the formal annulment statistics.

In distinction, in the non-Catholic apostolic Churches, a prior civil marriage does not require a formal declaration of nullity by the Church. The Church just assumes the marriage never occured at all. Thus, the annulment statistics are low compared to the Catholic Church’s.

So I would request non-Catholics - especially those from apostolic churches - to stop throwing around this canard that “annulments are just an excuse for divorce in the Catholic Church.” If your Church had the same ecclesiastical requirements as the Latin Church with regards to annulments, your annulment statistics would skyrocket as well.

**Come on Marduk, dude, did I say that? Go back and show me where I said the Church teaches that. Reading comprehension! And by the way, I was responding to the OP’s statement about birth control. I’d like you, right now, to go back and read the OP and see if he mentions birth control in there. Go check right now. I responded to all his OP. How can you fault me for turning “irrelevent?”

Blessings to you as well**
So are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches people to use birth control? In case you did not read all the earlier posts, the purpose of this OP is to discuss doctrinal-canonical standards. Do you think your statistic is relevant in any way to the purpose of the OP?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Jimmy_B]

What you are saying is that the Church is declaring large numbers of marriages that are really true sacramental marriages, as defective from the start. I did read an article from 1995 (link below), stating that the Vatican objects to the number of tribunal annulments being declared and that it is a grave scandal. It is defective matrimonial consent which is the ground for more than two thirds of annulments in the United States, and this is the problem type of annulment. 1968 had 400 formal annulments granted in the USA. Since 1984 there have been 59,000 recorded annulments annually.

nytimes.com/books/first/v/vasoli-joined.html

It is really tragic about all the people using birth control for it means they do not accept the Church teaching, thus proclaiming: “I’m on the highway to hell.”

I tried to go to your link but it wouldn’t show me the article because I’m not registered. Excellent post though and “grave scandal” is a good way, not only to described the annulment problem in America but the divorce problem in general… especially when there are children involved. I’m glad that the Pope is responding to the problem.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Someone’s been listening to a little too much AC/DC. I don’t agree.

It is really tragic about all the people using birth control for it means they do not accept the Church teaching, thus proclaiming: “I’m on the highway to hell.”

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And, instead of answering the question here, you seem bent on changing the discussion… Now, why’s that? Because you know I’m right? This thread is not about “Nine Two’s” post. Go back and read the first post here. Also, look up the definition of “strawman” and compare that with your posts here…

Actually it would be a non sequitor, but that’s neither here nor there. If you want to compare posts, let us. Nine Two was responding to your statement that the Catholic Church had the strictest rules compared to everyone else: he responded that the mere presence of rules doesn’t negate that the system is still flawed as shown by the abuse - in other words, the rules did nothing to curb the annulment growth. You first denied that there was any legitimacy behind his point, then in a follow up post mocked it as hearsay. I then (actually, between the posts ironically) cited three sources which verified what Nine_Two was saying. You backtracked a bit from your position it didn’t happen and simply replied with the argument, “Well it says the pope is cracking down on it, so that proves my point.” I replied that I cited those sources to show that what Nine_Two was talking about was indeed factual. You replied that it didn’t matter, since Roman Catholicism has rules. I responded by essentially pointing out that having rules and backing them up are two different things (amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War should have by all means ended government-imposed racism, but such practices continued well into the 1960’s). You replied to that by essentially going “rah rah rah” for the Roman Catholic Church and repeating that they have tough laws regarding marriage, ignoring the continued argumentation that those laws in practice mean nothing. I tried to elucidate this in my next response, but you replied simply by accusing Nine_Two and I of performing a straw man (which is erroneous), and then to again claim we were denying the Church had rules and regulations (something neither of us have done).

My friend, while you may win support from hardcore Roman Catholic supporters, I think most discerning readers will recognize that the only person here who has practiced a straw man and avoided responding to the argumentation has been yourself. This isn’t a matter of someone not understanding Roman Catholicism, this is a matter of Roman Catholics bringing up an issue and having that concern either mocked or simply not replied to.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Oh no you dih-ent!

Actually it would be a non sequitor, but that’s neither here nor there. If you want to compare posts, let us. Nine Two was responding to your statement that the Catholic Church had the strictest rules compared to everyone else: he responded that the mere presence of rules doesn’t negate that the system is still flawed as shown by the abuse - in other words, the rules did nothing to curb the annulment growth. You first denied that there was any legitimacy behind his point, then in a follow up post mocked it as hearsay. I then (actually, between the posts ironically) cited three sources which verified what Nine_Two was saying. You backtracked a bit from your position it didn’t happen and simply replied with the argument, “Well it says the pope is cracking down on it, so that proves my point.” I replied that I cited those sources to show that what Nine_Two was talking about was indeed factual. You replied that it didn’t matter, since Roman Catholicism has rules. I responded by essentially pointing out that having rules and backing them up are two different things (amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War should have by all means ended government-imposed racism, but such practices continued well into the 1960’s). You replied to that by essentially going “rah rah rah” for the Roman Catholic Church and repeating that they have tough laws regarding marriage, ignoring the continued argumentation that those laws in practice mean nothing. I tried to elucidate this in my next response, but you replied simply by accusing Nine_Two and I of performing a straw man (which is erroneous), and then to again claim we were denying the Church had rules and regulations (something neither of us have done).

My friend, while you may win support from hardcore Roman Catholic supporters, I think most discerning readers will recognize that the only person here who has practiced a straw man and avoided responding to the argumentation has been yourself. This isn’t a matter of someone not understanding Roman Catholicism, this is a matter of Roman Catholics bringing up an issue and having that concern either mocked or simply not replied to.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Actually it would be a non sequitor, but that’s neither here nor there. If you want to compare posts, let us. Nine Two was responding to your statement that the Catholic Church had the strictest rules compared to everyone else: he responded that the mere presence of rules doesn’t negate that the system is still flawed as shown by the abuse - in other words, the rules did nothing to curb the annulment growth. You first denied that there was any legitimacy behind his point, then in a follow up post mocked it as hearsay. I then (actually, between the posts ironically) cited three sources which verified what Nine_Two was saying. You backtracked a bit from your position it didn’t happen and simply replied with the argument, “Well it says the pope is cracking down on it, so that proves my point.” I replied that I cited those sources to show that what Nine_Two was talking about was indeed factual. You replied that it didn’t matter, since Roman Catholicism has rules. I responded by essentially pointing out that having rules and backing them up are two different things (amendments added to the Constitution after the Civil War should have by all means ended government-imposed racism, but such practices continued well into the 1960’s). You replied to that by essentially going “rah rah rah” for the Roman Catholic Church and repeating that they have tough laws regarding marriage, ignoring the continued argumentation that those laws in practice mean nothing. I tried to elucidate this in my next response, but you replied simply by accusing Nine_Two and I of performing a straw man (which is erroneous), and then to again claim we were denying the Church had rules and regulations (something neither of us have done).

My friend, while you may win support from hardcore Roman Catholic supporters, I think most discerning readers will recognize that the only person here who has practiced a straw man and avoided responding to the argumentation has been yourself. This isn’t a matter of someone not understanding Roman Catholicism, this is a matter of Roman Catholics bringing up an issue and having that concern either mocked or simply not replied to.

Why don’t we both support that sanctity of marriage. We shouldn’t be arguing about this, we should be agreeing. You and I both know that there are Christian denominations that do not properly address the issues of marriage and divorce and that the Catholic Church has the strictest doctrine in this area. Do you deny this?

BTW, what did you think of my Elvis, drive-thru wedding picture?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Why don’t we both support that sanctity of marriage. We shouldn’t be arguing about this, we should be agreeing. You and I both know that there are Christian denominations that do not properly address the issues of marriage and divorce and that the Catholic Church has the strictest doctrine in this area. Do you deny this?

Oh my gosh…

Jimmy…

Jimmy…

Are…

Are you proposing?

Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh yes! Yes I will marry you!

I mean…ahem Of course, marriage is sacred. And I hate it when people get divorced for the most stupid of reasons. “It just ain’t like it used to be.” Well no ****. Then don’t get married before an eternal God and swear an oath that you’ll stay together.

BTW, what did you think of my Elvis, drive-thru wedding picture?

I never got those. Somehow I don’t think Elvis was ever ordained.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think you’re making it an argument about strictness. But the reality is that there are tons of loop-holes and cheesy annulments given that shouldn’t be given that are tantamount to divorces. The Church allows divorce, just re-packages it as something else called an annulment. A “true” annulment would be pretty rare. Think of it. An annulment says a valid marriage never even took place! How rare is that really? Most couples want a split over stupid things like “irreconcilable differences” and not getting along, etc. Adultery, which is given as an excuse by our Lord, more specifically the Greek term “porneia” is used, and yet is that really an annulment in itself? An annulment says it was invalid from the get-go, which I don’t think is totally consistent with Christ’s teaching on “porneia.” He never uses invalidity as an excuse for divorce.

I think it’s better that Orthodoxy is honest and calls it a divorce. If a man is beating his wife, brutalizing her, assaulting her, she asks for a divorce. The Catholics give her an “annulment” which says she was never really married to the guy validly to begin with. What if she was? By their approach, they can’t in good conscience annul it and she has to stay attached to this bum or else seperate and NOT remarry. Hardly fair.

The Orthodox, to their credit, call it a divorce, and don’t try semantical charades making it look like something else. I give 'em credit for that at least.

I happen to hate divorce, but the annulment lingo is kooky to me IMO.

Why don’t we both support that sanctity of marriage. We shouldn’t be arguing about this, we should be agreeing. You and I both know that there are Christian denominations that do not properly address the issues of marriage and divorce and that the Catholic Church has the strictest doctrine in this area. Do you deny this?

BTW, what did you think of my Elvis, drive-thru wedding picture?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Oh my gosh…

Jimmy…

Jimmy…

Are…

Are you proposing?

Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh yes! Yes I will marry you!

I mean…ahem Of course, marriage is sacred. And I hate it when people get divorced for the most stupid of reasons. “It just ain’t like it used to be.” Well no ****. Then don’t get married before an eternal God and swear an oath that you’ll stay together.

I never got those. Somehow I don’t think Elvis was ever ordained.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Maybe you can fly to Iceland and you two can get hitched. That lesbian president and her “partner” could officiate! LOL

Oh my gosh…

Jimmy…

Jimmy…

Are…

Are you proposing?

Oh my gosh! Oh my gosh yes! Yes I will marry you!

I mean…ahem Of course, marriage is sacred. And I hate it when people get divorced for the most stupid of reasons. “It just ain’t like it used to be.” Well no ****. Then don’t get married before an eternal God and swear an oath that you’ll stay together.

I never got those. Somehow I don’t think Elvis was ever ordained.