Divorce and Remarriage

[KostyaJMJ]

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

Nope, I said the teaching of the Church. The teaching on divorce is crystal clear but people are sinful and even people in authority in the Church are capable of sin. That doesn’t change the constant truth that has been taught by the magisterium. If you want to judge the official Church teaching that is what you would have to look at.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

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.

The increase in the number of annulments started in the 1960s so that puts it at about 50 years.

Simony was common for centuries before Trent.

 

[Jimmy_B]

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

Go back and read your post here, post #29. I must have confused you with someone here that I use to get along with and with someone who I thought that I agreed with, more than I disagreed…I must have been thinking of someone else… Sorry for the mix-up.

Take care

 

[Jimmy_B]

I really misjudged the response that I thought I would get here. I honestly thought that there would be more agreement on this issue and that most observant Christians, Protestant and Catholic would hold a fairly conservation view towards marriage and divorce. I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage and believe that it is an important Sacrament. Sacraments, are so named because they are sacred. That’s why marriage has been called “Holy Matrimony”. Many of the responses here seem to be more about how a rule concerning marriage, has or might affect “me” and not about the Sacrament of Marriage itself… an institution created by God. Marriage is an important Sacrament that should be strongly defended and protected by all people and in all faiths!

 

[4Squarebaby]

I really misjudged the response that I thought I would get here. I honestly thought that there would be more agreement on this issue and that most observant Christians, Protestant and Catholic would hold a fairly conservation view towards marriage and divorce. I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage and believe that it is an important Sacrament. Sacraments, are so named because they are sacred. That’s why marriage has been called “Holy Matrimony”. Many of the responses here seem to be more about how a rule concerning marriage, has or might affect “me” and not about the Sacrament of Marriage itself… an institution created by God. Marriage is an important Sacrament that should be strongly defended and protected by all people and in all faiths!

If I understand correctly you would have to add that marriage is not a sacrament unless a Catholic followed his Bishops order for the actual witnessed ceremony. And if he didn’t then you don’t care about family, kids or any other factors that make up a marriage because without the Priest acting as witness, in the church…well then they were just fornicators anyway and now after a church judicial process a proper marriage can take place.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I sometimes question how marriage came to be defined as a sacrament actually. Luther pointed out that the Church always considered a sacrament to:

a) an outward sign representing an inner grace
b) give grace from Christ
c) be instituted by Christ Himself

The Eucharist is a perfect example. It was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper. It has an outward sign: bread and wine. It gives grace: the Presence of Christ within us.

Or baptism. The outward sign is water. The grace is a relationship with God through the Holy Spirit come to dwell within us spiritually. It was instituted by Christ with John the Baptist.

Marriage existed long before Christ became man. It has no outward sign. One can argue it gives grace to each member.

Interesting analysis Luther gave IMO.

I really misjudged the response that I thought I would get here. I honestly thought that there would be more agreement on this issue and that most observant Christians, Protestant and Catholic would hold a fairly conservation view towards marriage and divorce. I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage and believe that it is an important Sacrament. Sacraments, are so named because they are sacred. That’s why marriage has been called “Holy Matrimony”. Many of the responses here seem to be more about how a rule concerning marriage, has or might affect “me” and not about the Sacrament of Marriage itself… an institution created by God. Marriage is an important Sacrament that should be strongly defended and protected by all people and in all faiths!

 

[4Squarebaby]

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!

So are you following the Kris Aquino annulment on the grounds that the officer did not turn in the paper work?

 

[blueadept]

If I understand correctly you would have to add that marriage is not a sacrament unless a Catholic followed his Bishops order for the actual witnessed ceremony. And if he didn’t then you don’t care about family, kids or any other factors that make up a marriage because without the Priest acting as witness, in the church…well then they were just fornicators anyway and now after a church judicial process a proper marriage can take place.

After going through the process and the treatment of my wife’s previous non-Catholic marriage, your statement does not even remotely represent the Catholic thought about the issue IMO. All marriages are sacred would be a better representation of the Catholic thought. That is why the RCC looks at the conditions that occurred when the vows were taken, irregardless of what faith (or no faith) the individual is/was practicing.

 

[Vico]

…

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.

…\quote]

They may never repent, once having established their habits, besides that, they have their reward in this life: they profess the Satanic Creed of AC/DC (Australian rock and roll band, est,1973) in Highway to Hell (1979):

Living easy, living free
Season ticket on a one-way ride
Asking nothing, leave me be
Taking everything in my stride
.
Don’t need reason, dont need rhyme
Ain’t nothing I’d rather do
Going down, party time
My friends are gonna be there too, yeah
.
No stop signs, speed limit
Nobodys gonna slow me down
Like a wheel, gonna spin it
Nobody’s gonna mess me 'round
.
Hey Satan, payed my dues
Playing in a rocking band
Hey Momma, look at me
I’m on my way to the promised land
.
I’m on the highway to hell
(Don’t stop me)
And I’m going down, all the way down
I’m on the highway to hell

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Actually I’m NOT! I didn’t hear about that. Are you serious? That’s crazy!!? But in the Philippines, NOTHING surprises me!

So are you following the Kris Aquino annulment on the grounds that the officer did not turn in the paper work?

 

[Vico]

I really misjudged the response that I thought I would get here. I honestly thought that there would be more agreement on this issue and that most observant Christians, Protestant and Catholic would hold a fairly conservation view towards marriage and divorce. I strongly believe in the sanctity of marriage and believe that it is an important Sacrament. Sacraments, are so named because they are sacred. That’s why marriage has been called “Holy Matrimony”. Many of the responses here seem to be more about how a rule concerning marriage, has or might affect “me” and not about the Sacrament of Marriage itself… an institution created by God. Marriage is an important Sacrament that should be strongly defended and protected by all people and in all faiths!

I think this is a very important statement that you have made adressing the sacramental quality of Matrimony. The Holy Spirit is working in Matrimony. Why is it different than a natural marriage which is not a sacrament?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1620:

Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will. [117] Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom [118] and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:
Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good. [119]

[117] Cf. Mt 19:3-12.

[118] Cf. LG 42; PC 12; OT 10.

LG = Lumen gentium (Dogmatic Constution of Second Vatican Council)
PC = *Perfectae caritatis *(Pope Paul VI)
OT = Optatam totius (Pope Paul VI)

[119] St. John Chrysostom, De virg. 10,1G 48,540; Cf. John Paul II, FC 16.

PG = J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Greaca (Paris, 1867-1866)
FC = Familiaris consortio (Pope John Paul II)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The official teaching is that there is no divorce, only annulments which prove a valid marriage didn’t exist in the first place. So in the case of a man and woman who marry in the Catholic Church validly, stay married for five years, all of a sudden the man breaks her jaw, beats her to a pulp, technically those two are joined at the hip until death do they part. She can seperate from him but she doesn’t have the right to start over again with someone new. She is done. Now if we can prove they had an invalid marriage and the guy was previously married and divorced or something along the lines of technicalities, then she has a chance. I don’t agree with this stuff.

Nope, I said the teaching of the Church. The teaching on divorce is crystal clear but people are sinful and even people in authority in the Church are capable of sin. That doesn’t change the constant truth that has been taught by the magisterium. If you want to judge the official Church teaching that is what you would have to look at.

 

[4Squarebaby]

Actually I’m NOT! I didn’t hear about that. Are you serious? That’s crazy!!? But in the Philippines, NOTHING surprises me!

A friend theorizes that her network hired the basketball star to produce a child with her and when he eventually choose a younger women they will pull the nulity gambit. Of course being a 2 percenter she doesn’t have to fake an psychological incapacity for an annulment like most Filipinos. But then he is a cynic.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think this is a very important statement that you have made adressing the sacramental quality of Matrimony. The Holy Spirit is working in Matrimony. Why is it different than a natural marriage which is not a sacrament?

Catechism of the Catholic Church 1620:

Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will. [117] Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom [118] and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:
Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good. [119]

[117] Cf. Mt 19:3-12.

[118] Cf. LG 42; PC 12; OT 10.

LG = Lumen gentium (Dogmatic Constution of Second Vatican Council)
PC = *Perfectae caritatis *(Pope Paul VI)
OT = Optatam totius (Pope Paul VI)

[119] St. John Chrysostom, De virg. 10,1G 48,540; Cf. John Paul II, FC 16.

PG = J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Greaca (Paris, 1867-1866)
FC = Familiaris consortio (Pope John Paul II)

I like that - "the sacramental quality of Matrimony". Nice post, thank you*.*

 

[Jimmy_B]

Here** are the search results for the word “marriage” for The Catechism of the Catholic Church.**

**I’ve posted the first few here. I hope this is helpful in understanding the Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue. **

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**1615 **This unequivocal insistence on the indissolubility of the marriage bond may have left some perplexed and could seem to be a demand impossible to realize. However, Jesus has not placed on spouses a burden impossible to bear, or too heavy - heavier than the Law of Moses. By coming to restore the original order of creation disturbed by sin, he himself gives the strength and grace to live marriage in the new dimension of the Reign of God. It is by following Christ, renouncing themselves, and taking up their crosses that spouses will be able to “receive” the original meaning of marriage and live it with the help of Christ. This grace of Christian marriage is a fruit of Christ’s cross, the source of all Christian life.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**1640 **Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Catechism of the Catholic Church****
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. Christ the Lord raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament (cf. CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1).

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church****
**1631 **This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Catechism of the Catholic Church****
**1638 "From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive; furthermore, in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament."

---

Catechism of the Catholic Church****
**1652 **“By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.

 

[Vico]

Marriage Nullity or Privilege cases are:

Lack of Form (documentation):

1. Catholic + Catholic married Elsewhere w/o dispensation from Bishop
2. Catholic + Baptized married Elsewhere w/o dispensation from Bishop
3. Catholic + Unbaptized married elsewhere w/o dispensation from Bishop
   Formal Tribunal:
4. Catholic + Catholic married through the Catholic Church
5. Catholic + Catholic married Elsewhere w/ dispensation from Bishop
6. Catholic + Baptized married through the Catholic Church
7. Catholic + Baptized married Elsewhere w/ dispensation from Bishop
8. Baptized + Baptized married anywhere
   Formal or Petrine Privilege Tribunal:
9. Catholic + Unbaptized married through the Catholic Church
10. Catholic + Unbaptized married elsewhere w/ dispensation from Bishop
11. Baptized + Unbaptized married anywhere
    Formal Tribunal, Petrine Privilege Tribunal, or Pauline Privilege Tribunal
12. Unbaptized + Unbaptized married anywhere
    Ligamen Tribunal:
13. Baptized + Baptized married anywhere and either previously married w/o declaration of nullity
14. Baptized + Unbaptized married anywhere and either previously married w/o declaration of nullity
15. Unbaptized + Unbaptized married anywhere and either previously married w/o declaration of nullity

Lack of form, or marriage of unbaptized, or declaration of nullity means there was no sacrament.
Lack of form: there is no marriage.
Formal: the marriage may be invalid.
Petrine Privilege (rarely granted), and Pauline Privilege, apply only to a natural marriage.

 

[Reuben_J]

The official teaching is that there is no divorce, only annulments which prove a valid marriage didn’t exist in the first place. So in the case of a man and woman who marry in the Catholic Church validly, stay married for five years, all of a sudden the man breaks her jaw, beats her to a pulp, technically those two are joined at the hip until death do they part. She can seperate from him but she doesn’t have the right to start over again with someone new. She is done. Now if we can prove they had an invalid marriage and the guy was previously married and divorced or something along the lines of technicalities, then she has a chance. I don’t agree with this stuff.

That’s right – no divorce. The answer to marriage problem is NOT divorce, it’s coming back to God and the Church for ministry and guidance and obedience to them. We have seen how many problem marriages, some seemingly hopeless, been restored when couples come back and submit themselves to the authority of God. Divorce is unnecessary. Whether we agree to this or not, we are entitled to our personal opinion.

 

[mardukm]

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.

OK, but then you admit that you disagree with the notion of annulment itself, so I think I have a valid reason to be confused by your statements.

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.

I think I see the problem with your understanding of annulment. You think that people seek an annulment in place of divorce. You think that a person is married, decides he or she wants to marry someone else, and then goes out and seeks an annulment a week later. Viola! Divorce via annulment! That’s where you are definitely wrong. People don’t get annulments in order to be separated/divorced from their spouse. The fact of the matter is, people who seek an annulment have ALREADY been separated from their previous partner for a long period of time. Later, they might find someone who they want to marry. They decide to marry in the Catholic Church. So the Church must determine if they can recieve the Sacrament of Matrimony according to divine and ecclesiastical law. So the idea that annulment is a mere quickie replacement for a divorce is absolutely ludicrous.

My criticism is the notion of annulments themselves. I think the Orthodox honesty about divorce is refreshing.

Coming from an Orthodox background, I think it is offensive to place this topic in a Catholic vs. Orthodox context. The fact is, Orthodoxy - despite what you might percieve due to the number of Orthodox polemcists who complain that "annulments are just divorces - recognizes and practices the granting of annulments. And from an Oriental perspective, I (my own opinion) don’t find the divorce practice within Eastern Orthodoxy refershing at all. Some of the criteria they use for divorce, especially the Churches of the former U.S.S.R., is just the secular law transplanted into the Church. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church permits a spouse do divorce and remarry if the other spouse is imprisoned by the State for an indefinite period of time - not refreshing at all.

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 think this statement is confusing two things - 1) The ability to separate from an abusive or cheating spouse; 2) The ability to remarry. Annulment has absolutely nothing to do with separating from an abusive/cheating spouse. Rather annulment only has relevance when someone wants to eventually remarry. The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone who wants - nor considers it a sin - to separate from a constantly abusive or cheating spouse. So your notion that “annulment is the only way out” of such a relationship is utterly fallacious.

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.

I prefer the teaching of our Lord, which I believe is best reflected (note I am not saying it is “only” reflected) in the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk