Divorce and Remarriage

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

I was looking through sites on the subject and was surprised to find you can get an annulment if a spouse is abusive.

That is impossible. What you probably read was not one of the reasons for annulment, but one of the criteria for determining if one of the reasons for annulment exists.

For example, one of the accepted reasons for annulment is duress - someone being forced into the marriage. Abusiveness would be one of the signs/ criteria that establishes that duress has occurred. Abusiveness in and of itself is not grounds for an annulment, but its existence can lead to an annulment if it is the symptom of one of the valid reasons for annulment.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gurney,

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.

:whacky:That doesn’t make sense at all. The only way it could be a loophole mentality is if someone purposefully laid out their life from day one to follow the chain events you propose. That means this person must have intended from the start to get married civilly JUST to have a good time, intended from the start to get tired of this person, intended from the start to dump this person, intended from the start to thenceforth find someone else to marry in the Church, because he knew from the beginning that he could get his first marriage annulled. A loophole mentality denotes intention. Your scenario is utterly impossible to believe.

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

Not at all. Here are the premises - 1) The sexual license of the sixties when many if not most of the teen generation experimented with sex. Many get pregnant and are forced to get married. Or many get married just so they can have sex (the marriage just being a facade to appease their strict, traditional parents). 2) An influx of immigrants from countries where arranged marriages not based on love, but rather obligation, are prevalent or is the common practice (the U.S. relaxed its immigration laws in the late 60’s). 3) An increasingly secular society of the late sixties and seventies where civil, instead of Church, marriages became normative.
Not hard to imagine at all, IMO.

mardukm:

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?

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?”

The topic was/is the standards of a Church/church - what she teaches, what she forbids, what she allows. Then you responded by quoting a statistic on how many people practice birth control in the CC. Many people think that what the laity practices is a gauge of what the Church teaches. So I think my question was very natural.

The OP used the forbidding of BC in the churches as an example. Forbidding something is an act of teaching or instruction. Those are the terms of discussion set by the OP. If you claim even now that you had a valid response to the OP by giving the statistic, then that gives my question to you even more validity, n’est pas?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nine_Two]

Single adults that are not married, are not allowed to have sex, should the Church change the rule on fornication, because that’s tough too? It’s hard but it’s not impossible.

Single people (presumably you mean those who have never married) are not barred from Marriage, so it isn’t quite the same thing.

All of this stuff is in the Bible people… If you got a beef with the Catholic Church on marraige, then your beef is with God.

Christ also said that re-marriage had been allowed because (to paraphrase), we’re all screwups. I don’t think that’s changed.

 

[Publisher]

Thank you, I appreciate your friendship…and the lively discussions. But, why defend those denominations who aren’t as strict on marriage and divorce as your denomination? Like, those in Vegas, I don’t get it.

I wasn’t aware I defended any denomination concerning their liberal views on marriage.

I do not have a “Catholic” mind-set…I do not believe it has the authority it claims…nor did it ever posses it…for me those Protestants who do not have “official rules” governing divorce that mimic the “official Catholic” stance really makes no difference. If the Catholic church has a “strict policy”…yet from what I read and understand…Catholics still considered “Catholics” have a divorce rate as high as Protestant groups…Many Protestant groups make allowances for the failed marriages of their adherants and allow “remarriage”…Catholics on the other hand do not allow divorce…many if not most, of the “annulments” which take place among Catholics would be classified as “divorce” in Protestant groups since they have no “annulment policy” to fall back on to declare a “marriage” “null”…thereby allowing the person to then marry “sacramentally” when in many Protestant eyes…your “annulments” are their “divorces”.

It is a “disconnect” in terms, policy and real life situations that cause many Protestants to smile and say “Sure…I understand…Catholics don’t divorce…they get “annulments”…same thing as our “divorce”…but if they are happy allowing “annulments” while decrying our “divorces”…we can’t really change their belief on the subject.”

Catholics make the fine distinctions in such matters…those distinctions are not made by many Protestant groups.

Catholics don’t believe in divorce…yet in all appearances to most Protestants…calling a “divorce” an “annulment” and a “second marriage” by a Catholic really becomes a “first sacramental marriage”…to us…and me in particular sure appears to be a “word game”…whether “divorce” or “annulment”…“marriages” and families are ripped apart and the person they gave their vows to way back when…were binding just the same…“divorce” or “annulment”…the consequences to family, friends and children…is the same.

I understand the difference Catholics ascribe to the situation…but in my very Protesant mind I see the “difference” that makes no “difference”…no difference.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I thought I made it fairly clear but I’ll reiterate. The Church does indeed churn out a lot of bogus annulments IMO. But naturally there are cases of genuine ones and the possibility of having a genuine annulment is always there. I’m not sure why you’re confused by that? It’s like saying there’s a lot of cheating on the part of teachers on state testing AND there are teachers that don’t, who are honest. Makes sense to me.

What criterion would I have for a valid annulment? Well, first of all, if someone were married and the husband went and got a vasectomy without telling the wife. If a wife told her husband she refused to have children after the marriage. Or perhaps the husband had a lifestyle the wife wasn’t aware of? Deception is always a factor. Also, the spouses might be cheating on one another, “porneia” as Jesus describes it. Perhaps one spouse was really still married, perhaps a spouse thought they were divorced and remarried but were still validly married to someone else, etc. etc. Maybe a spouse was gay and didn’t tell the other spouse, who knows? There are plenty of reasons but honestly my reasoning is more in relation to divorce, not annulment. I think some of these are annulment situations but overall divorce is more appropriate.

My criticism is the notion of annulments themselves. I think the Orthodox honesty about divorce is refreshing. I am ok with an abusive husband being cut loose and let the wife divorce and remarry. I’m ok with a husband divorcing a cheating, adulterous wife, etc. The problem with the idea of annulment being the only way out is that it puts everything on validity and not circumstances, fairness, cruelty, justice, etc. That’s why I tend to disagree with it.

I personally am very, very happily married so I don’t have a pony in this race BUT I still am not an annulment fan. Like I said, I prefer the honesty of the Orthodox in conjunction with a bishop and the Holy Spirit.

Dear brother Gurney,

What do you mean by this? First you state that annulments are just divorces in disguise which indicates that you think the Church’s criteria for annulments are bogus. And then you state that a genuine annulment has a possibility of occurring.

What criteria do you accept for an annulment, if any?

Blessings

 

[Publisher]

You speak my mind.

 

[Splinker]

There’s money to be made in annulments.

"If you are divorced and want to remarry in the Catholic Church, you will need to receive a church annulment. This need is similar to receiving a divorce from the State before you civilly remarry.

As active and former church judges we can assist you in the preparation of your case, as we have the knowledge that comes from decades of experience processing thousands of annulments in the Catholic Church"

churchannulment.com/

So that’s one company that has apparently pushed through “thousands” of annulments.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My wife is from the Philippines, a staunchly Catholic country. Divorce is illegal. If you want an “annulment,” according to the attorneys with whom I spoke in my wife’s home town, it costs an average of around $800 U.S. to pay for an annulment. That’s the civil side influenced by Catholicism. Then you have to get one through the Church on top of the civil “annulment” which is really a euphamism for divorce. In other words, the moral of the story is this—don’t be a woman or else you’re out of luck!

There’s money to be made in annulments.

"If you are divorced and want to remarry in the Catholic Church, you will need to receive a church annulment. This need is similar to receiving a divorce from the State before you civilly remarry.

As active and former church judges we can assist you in the preparation of your case, as we have the knowledge that comes from decades of experience processing thousands of annulments in the Catholic Church"

churchannulment.com/

So that’s one company that has apparently pushed through “thousands” of annulments.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

You can’t really judge the Church’s teaching on divorce based on the abuses surrounding annulments that have popped up in the past 50 years. It would be like judging the Church’s teaching on Simony based on the abuses that popped up in the 11th and 12th century. It isn’t as if the Vatican is all powerful and can simply stamp out any abuse at will.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I believe it does. You overestimate people, brother mardukm. I know plenty of Catholics who are shaking up out of wedlock having kids and they have indeed stated it’s sinful but they still can “get out” if they want and marry later. They have the mentality that it’s free sex, good times rollin’, and down the road when they feel like getting serious about a relationship and children and morality, they’ll marry. For now, party baby. If you don’t think there are people like this mardukm, that’s a touch naive. Why do you think people cohabitate? They don’t want the moral responsibilities and civil/monetary link to a spouse. They want a backup clause to get out if things don’t go their way 100%. Why do you think people shack up? Why do you think people sign prenups? This culture plans on things going south, my brother. You’re giving people too much credit. For being an optimist, I give you credit however.

The OP mentioned birth control and I think it was a bit of a non-sequitor. I simply replied to it. I never said it was a teaching of the Catholic Church to use it.

I will say again that Christ is not about loopholes. I think the annulment process allows people to “say” they’re getting an annulment and the clergy can “say” it’s a recognition of invalidity of marriage but the reality is that many, many of these annulments are simply divorces. They’re not proving invalidity but rather abuse, disharmony, irreconcilable differences, adultery, etc. Some people can say that they had kids with a woman for years but weren’t technically every married. They were cohabitating so they are free to marry now. What do you think Our Lord would say about that? The two became one flesh in more ways than one. There are many scenarios in which annulments are divorces in disguise. I happen to know people who got annulments and the rationale was thin as a twig.

I’m not intent to argue this back and forth for infinity. I think my point is simple and direct.

God bless.

Dear brother Gurney,
:whacky:That doesn’t make sense at all. The only way it could be a loophole mentality is if someone purposefully laid out their life from day one to follow the chain events you propose. That means this person must have intended from the start to get married civilly JUST to have a good time, intended from the start to get tired of this person, intended from the start to dump this person, intended from the start to thenceforth find someone else to marry in the Church, because he knew from the beginning that he could get his first marriage annulled. A loophole mentality denotes intention. Your scenario is utterly impossible to believe.

Not at all. Here are the premises - 1) The sexual license of the sixties when many if not most of the teen generation experimented with sex. Many get pregnant and are forced to get married. Or many get married just so they can have sex (the marriage just being a facade to appease their strict, traditional parents). 2) An influx of immigrants from countries where arranged marriages not based on love, but rather obligation, are prevalent or is the common practice (the U.S. relaxed its immigration laws in the late 60’s). 3) An increasingly secular society of the late sixties and seventies where civil, instead of Church, marriages became normative.
Not hard to imagine at all, IMO.

The topic was/is the standards of a Church/church - what she teaches, what she forbids, what she allows. Then you responded by quoting a statistic on how many people practice birth control in the CC. Many people think that what the laity practices is a gauge of what the Church teaches. So I think my question was very natural.

The OP used the forbidding of BC in the churches as an example. Forbidding something is an act of teaching or instruction. Those are the terms of discussion set by the OP. If you claim even now that you had a valid response to the OP by giving the statistic, then that gives my question to you even more validity, n’est pas?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well then I guess there’s no accountability at all for anything, right? The abuse scandals, poor preaching, heresies, embezzlement, annulments, corruption, all of it happens at a local level at different places and times. To never blame leadership is a carte blanche blank check to never be criticized. Obama could easily say, “hey, the Gulf Oil Spill ain’t my fault. I can’t control everything that happens on my watch!” or Jimmy Carter with inflation could say the same thing.

They’d be wrong

You can’t really judge the Church’s teaching on divorce based on the abuses surrounding annulments that have popped up in the past 50 years. It would be like judging the Church’s teaching on Simony based on the abuses that popped up in the 11th and 12th century. It isn’t as if the Vatican is all powerful and can simply stamp out any abuse at will.

 

[Nine_Two]

You can’t really judge the Church’s teaching on divorce based on the abuses surrounding annulments that have popped up in the past 50 years. It would be like judging the Church’s teaching on Simony based on the abuses that popped up in the 11th and 12th century. It isn’t as if the Vatican is all powerful and can simply stamp out any abuse at will.

Actually we most certainly should judge the Catholic Church on the law they proclaim versus the law they follow. How an organization follows its own rules says a lot about it. Afterall Christ affirmed the piety of the law of pharisees, but denounced them for how they carried it out.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I agree. If we set up an institution as 100% perfect at all times and above their own laws, we become totally legalistic and the heart of the Law that Christ talks about becomes secondary.

Actually we most certainly should judge the Catholic Church on the law they proclaim versus the law they follow. How an organization follows its own rules says a lot about it. Afterall Christ affirmed the piety of the law of pharisees, but denounced them for how they carried it out.

 

[Publisher]

You can’t really judge the Church’s teaching on divorce based on the abuses surrounding annulments that have popped up in the past 50 years. It would be like judging the Church’s teaching on Simony based on the abuses that popped up in the 11th and 12th century. It isn’t as if the Vatican is all powerful and can simply stamp out any abuse at will.

So to put it in words I can understand…The Catholic church has the most stringent policy of divorce and remarriage of all Christian groups…they just don’t enforce it to any degree so the abuses are stopped.

A policy not adhered to or having something in place to get around the policy…is not a policy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And strictness isn’t necessarily a sign that the Gospel or the truth is getting out there. It’s not enough to just be against everything; one must be FOR something as well. I agree there.

So to put it in words I can understand…The Catholic church has the most stringent policy of divorce and remarriage of all Christian groups…they just don’t enforce it to any degree so the abuses are stopped.

A policy not adhered to…is not a policy.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well then I guess there’s no accountability at all for anything, right? The abuse scandals, poor preaching, heresies, embezzlement, annulments, corruption, all of it happens at a local level at different places and times. To never blame leadership is a carte blanche blank check to never be criticized. Obama could easily say, “hey, the Gulf Oil Spill ain’t my fault. I can’t control everything that happens on my watch!” or Jimmy Carter with inflation could say the same thing.

They’d be wrong

Plus, given the example of Simony, the fact that the Vatican did eventually stamp it out shows that they certainly do have a very strong influence on it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And the $$$ connected to indulgences were nailed down at Trent. And if they want, they can stamp out this molestation garbage as well, to some degree, never 100%.

Plus, given the example of Simony, the fact that the Vatican did eventually stamp it out shows that they certainly do have a very strong influence on it.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Plus, given the example of Simony, the fact that the Vatican did eventually stamp it out shows that they certainly do have a very strong influence on it.

How long did it take them? We are only 50 years into this annulment abuse.

 

[Nine_Two]

How long did it take them? We are only 50 years into this annulment abuse.

Where does this 50 come from, out of curiousity?

The sale of offices was formally “outlawed” (for lack of a better word) with the Council of Trent, which itself took 18 years, but once finished the rules were put in place immediatly with Pius V sending out legates to inforce those parts of the decision. Other parts of Trent took significanlty longer to impliment, but clearly when the Pope desires he does have the power to enforce reform.

 

[blueadept]

I thought I made it fairly clear but I’ll reiterate. The Church does indeed churn out a lot of bogus annulments IMO. But naturally there are cases of genuine ones and the possibility of having a genuine annulment is always there. I’m not sure why you’re confused by that? It’s like saying there’s a lot of cheating on the part of teachers on state testing AND there are teachers that don’t, who are honest. Makes sense to me.

What criterion would I have for a valid annulment? Well, first of all, if someone were married and the husband went and got a vasectomy without telling the wife. If a wife told her husband she refused to have children after the marriage. Or perhaps the husband had a lifestyle the wife wasn’t aware of? Deception is always a factor. Also, the spouses might be cheating on one another, “porneia” as Jesus describes it. Perhaps one spouse was really still married, perhaps a spouse thought they were divorced and remarried but were still validly married to someone else, etc. etc. Maybe a spouse was gay and didn’t tell the other spouse, who knows? There are plenty of reasons but honestly my reasoning is more in relation to divorce, not annulment. I think some of these are annulment situations but overall divorce is more appropriate.

My criticism is the notion of annulments themselves. I think the Orthodox honesty about divorce is refreshing. I am ok with an abusive husband being cut loose and let the wife divorce and remarry. I’m ok with a husband divorcing a cheating, adulterous wife, etc. The problem with the idea of annulment being the only way out is that it puts everything on validity and not circumstances, fairness, cruelty, justice, etc. That’s why I tend to disagree with it.

I personally am very, very happily married so I don’t have a pony in this race BUT I still am not an annulment fan. Like I said, I prefer the honesty of the Orthodox in conjunction with a bishop and the Holy Spirit.

Since I do have a pony in this race, I’ll throw my 2 cents into this.

When I remarried 7 years ago, it wasn’t in the RCC even though I’ve been a clueless Catholic up to that point in my life. In wanting to rectify my marriage, it was necessary to go through the annulment process for myself and my wife since we were previously married before we could get our marriage blessed in the RCC. The process made me really appreciate the RCC’s viewpoint on the sanctity of marriage and something that shouldn’t be taken lightly.

My 1st marriage was annulled due to the fact that both of us were Catholic but didn’t get the marriage blessed in the RCC in front of a priest. I would be really curious of the number of annulments that are given that is due to having ‘Las Vegas’ style weddings that weren’t done in the RCC. ‘Destination’ weddings seem to be the current fad that I don’t believe the RCC has come up with an appropriate response so that Catholics can address this desire. It wants you to get married in your home diocese whether you have other desires or not. Anyways, I didn’t have a problem with being given an annulment since I didn’t follow the church’s guidelines.

The church gave my wife her annulment since we could produce evidence that the husband questioned if he was doing the proper thing since he believed he had homosexual desires at that time. Since he had his story published in a Gay & Lesbian newspaper, IMO it was a no-brainer for the RCC to grant the annulment, so I liked the reasoning for the annulment.

So we had our marriage blessed in the RCC of our own free-will 5 years ago. I knew that religion may always be an issue for us since I’m Catholic and she’s LDS, but with her going through the annulment process for me and us going through the Engagement and Marriage encounter process, I felt we had an honest chance. Unfortunately, we’re at the tail-end of the civil divorce process with the reasoning for her is ‘unreconciliable differences’ due to our religious differences. As I understand my faith, I don’t believe I would have any case to receive another annulment so I should take the steps to make sure that I can honor my covenants even though I know my wife will eventually not honor them. I’m not looking forward to the ‘no sexual relations’ aspect of my life, but I really do want to honor my vows and my faith. Being an example for my children and faith seem to be more important at this point. As a priest told me, we have to rely on the Lord to fill in the gaps of our life. That seems to be the best advise.