Divorce and Remarriage

[mellowcalico]

I wanted to post to this thread before the subject changed, but I was unable to for some reason.

This whole issue is one that sometimes makes me contemplate leaving the Church. You see, my husband left me. I was a loyal, “good” wife for 10 years, but unbeknown to me when I married him, he was bi-sexual and was having affairs. He even had one male lover whom he met before we were married which continued until after we were married (he even “hooked up” with this guy on the night we came back from our honeymoon). We talked about having multiple children, suddenly when we were married it was “none.” We did have a daughter, but then it was “one and done.” and marital relations completely stopped and he found another man and then a woman. There were other issues as well, but for me, that’s the main part of the marital breakdown.

We never sought counseling because he was in the military and he was afraid of them finding out and losing his clearance. I endured it for years because I felt it was my sacrifice to make… and that if I kept trying, we’d work though it. Finally, after years of this we tried counseling, but it was too little too late and he stopped going after only a couple of sessions.

He left me and wants a divorce (we are legally separated right now). We are going for no-fault because he has no real grounds to divorce me other than “he doesn’t want to be married anymore.” And I am unable to prove the adultery (my lawyer said I would probably need to hire a professional private investigator at the cost of hundreds if not thousands of dollars). All for the same result a no-fault will give. I could have fought it, but that would have only put me in debt with legal fees. I have a child to take care of alone now, and I have to think of her first.

I will try for an annulment, but again I can’t “prove” anything. I have one friend who knows about the male lover my husband had (my husband admitted it to us when he was drunk and she was there). I found things before… a “gay man’s discount card” in his wallet, sexual “toys” etc… but they are all long gone/hidden. So if my husband isn’t ready to come out of the closet, it’s my word against his. I am hoping I can get him to cooperate with something like him not thinking a marriage was for life, etc. But that’s a weak argument.

Anyway, I started reading this thread and started to tear up. Am I doomed to hell for a poor choice? Annulment can “save me”, but what if I can’t prove it? So if the marriage isn’t found invalid, then I am doomed to hell and doomed to be alone the rest of my days. It’s very depressing and I can’t imaging a loving God, a Father would wish this upon me. I feel as if I did nothing wrong, but am being punished now and for eternity for something that wasn’t my choice. I want to be married, have more children, love and be loved… that’s my calling, not to live alone for the rest of my days after my one child grows up. I can’t even be a sister if I wanted to go that path because since I am still married.

It’s stuff like that that makes me think maybe the Church is wrong (or at the very least the men of the Church are interpreting things wrong).

I have no plans to leave the Church, please don’t misunderstand. I’ve been leaning heavily on God thought this and feel closer to him. I’ve talked to a priest too and he’s reassured me that I am still in communion with the Church, but I still have doubts especially when I read this kind of thing. And the thought that I am an outcast now and should leave has crossed my mind more than once. It’s just so depressing and confusing.

 

[PLeeD]

The RCC does follow Jesus’s own words. The spouses can divorce, but not remarry.

But that’s not what the text of Matt 19:9 says. The NAB is apparently the only translation that doesn’t frame the verse in the in the same way as the DR, as I posted above.

Despite the efforts in the commentary you supplied, which seek to nullify the ability of the wronged spouse to remarry, the verse is easily understandable by all. Remarriage of divorced people is not allowed “except it be for fornication”. It doesn’t get any clearer.

Haydcock’s contention that this understanding would allow the adulterous spouse who was “put away” to remarry without committing adultery is laughable, and doesn’t deserve any other response.

The fact that Mark or Luke don’t mention the exception does not nullify the clearly stated exception in Matthew. Which is more likely, that the exception was left out of Mark, or that Matthew added the exception with no authority?

And what about this:

Douay-Rheims Bible 1 Cor 7:15
But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.

Paul clearly says that the brother whose unbelieving spouse departs is no longer “under servitude”. In place of “servitude”, most other translations use the word “bound”, meaning the abandoned spouse is free to re-marry the same way a widow is no longer bound to their departed spouse.

Rather than following the clear teaching Jesus found in Matthew 19:9, a non-scriptural policy on remarriage of a wronged spouse has been established, and then contortions of reason have been performed to justify that untenable position.

 

[PLeeD]

MellowCalico,

I hope those verses give you some peace of mind. God does not condemn you! I can’t imagine that your annulment won’t be approved. In any case, just know that God wants you to experience all the fruits of the spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and so much more!

 

[Vico]

But that’s not what the text of Matt 19:9 says. The NAB is apparently the only translation that doesn’t frame the verse in the in the same way as the DR, as I posted above.

Despite the efforts in the commentary you supplied, which seek to nullify the ability of the wronged spouse to remarry, the verse is easily understandable by all. Remarriage of divorced people is not allowed “except it be for fornication”. It doesn’t get any clearer.

Haydcock’s contention that this understanding would allow the adulterous spouse who was “put away” to remarry without committing adultery is laughable, and doesn’t deserve any other response.

The fact that Mark or Luke don’t mention the exception does not nullify the clearly stated exception in Matthew. Which is more likely, that the exception was left out of Mark, or that Matthew added the exception with no authority?

And what about this:
Douay-Rheims Bible 1 Cor 7:15
But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace.
Paul clearly says that the brother whose unbelieving spouse departs is no longer “under servitude”. In place of “servitude”, most other translations use the word “bound”, meaning the abandoned spouse is free to re-marry the same way a widow is no longer bound to their departed spouse.

Rather than following the clear teaching Jesus found in Matthew 19:9, a non-scriptural policy on remarriage of a wronged spouse has been established, and then contortions of reason have been performed to justify that untenable position.

Jesus never says that remarriage is permitted rather that a second marriage is adultery where a valid first marriage exists. Tradition shows that the Church has authority in marriage not the civil authorities.

The specific word for “adultery” used in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is not moichaomai, but porneia, and porneia and moichaomai are not synonyms. Porneia (Strong’s G4202) can mean any kind of sexual immorality including sexual perversion in pagan worship.

Porneia can be a lawful (divine law) reason for declaration of nullity; an inherent condition that invalidates the covenant. The overall teaching in the three gospels on this topic is the return to the original lifelong marriage to one person as it was from “the beginning”; they become one flesh. Matthew 19:3–9, Mark 10:11–12, Luke 16:18. (Mark 10:11–12 and Luke 16:18 give no exception.)

Rather than following the clear teaching Jesus found in the Gospel on restoration of one marriage, a non-scriptural and non-traditional view allowing remarriage of a spouse already in a valid marriage has been established by some non-Catholics.

 

[rinnie]

Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Why doesn’t the RCC follow Jesus’ own words?

The RCC does follow the words of Jesus. NO DIVORCE.

First let me show you this. There are 4 reasons why the RCC will give an annullment and not a DIVORCE because in the eyes of the Church there was no marriage.

1. Lack of due discretion in choosing a spouse. (this means Fraud of one of the Parties)
2. Pyschic in the capacity of fulfilling the obligations of a marriage.
3. Defect of form. (not married in the RCC)
4. Prior bond (the person was married to another at the time of the marriage)

Now you need to show me how anyone can any of the above problems and had a true marriage in the sense of what a marriage is. A true loving marriage could not be possible.

Now if those cannot be shown there is no annullment granted. There is no DIVORCE. What do you not understand about that. In the eyes of the Church they are married until the other dies. I do not care what the law says. The Church considers them married. If it was a true marriage you will not get out.

Now try this on for size.

1 Cor 7:10-11
To the MARRIED however I give this instruction (NOT I BUT THE LORD) A wife SHOULD NOT separate from her husband. IF she DOES separate she must either REMAIN SINGLE or become reconciled to her husband. And a HUSBAND SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE.

Now either the CHurch is right and an annllment can indeed show that the marriage was unlawfull according to the definition of what marriage is. Which in the Church a marriage is 2 people giving up ones self for the other. And a way to unite 2 into l. THe same as Christ with his Church.

And if it is a true marriage NO DIVORCE is permitted. Or Scripture contradicts scripture and divorce is allowed. Now whats it going to be.

So either the Church again is correct and a annullment means there was never a marriage. Or the Church is wrong and scripture contradicts scripture. ANd divorce is allowed!!

 

[PLeeD]

One question. Does this policy on remarriage come infallibly from an Ex Cathedra statement? Or, is the source for this from a lower authority?

The RCC does follow the words of Jesus. NO DIVORCE.

There are a minimum of two verses in the bible that state exceptions that allow for divorce and remarriage. It’s the RCC interpretation that ignores the exceptions. Just because the exceptions aren’t stated in one place doesn’t make them invalid when they are stated in another place. It also doesn’t constitute a contradiction.

First let me show you this. There are 4 reasons why the RCC will give an annullment and not a DIVORCE because in the eyes of the Church there was no marriage.

I don’t necessarily have a problem with the annulment process. If that’s the church’s policy then so be it. For two people who were married within the church, and with both wishing to remain in the church, it’s up to the church’s discretion.

Now try this on for size.

1 Cor 7:10-11
To the MARRIED however I give this instruction (NOT I BUT THE LORD) A wife SHOULD NOT separate from her husband. IF she DOES separate she must either REMAIN SINGLE or become reconciled to her husband. And a HUSBAND SHOULD NOT DIVORCE HIS WIFE.

You left out verse 15 that follows:

*1 Cor 7:15 - But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
*

What does that verse mean to you?

Or the Church is wrong and scripture contradicts scripture. ANd divorce is allowed!!

There is no contradiction. There are two exceptions where divorce and remarriage are allowed. One universally in the case of adultery, or more broadly porneia, which is the case for MellowCalico. Also, in the case of an unbeliever leaving a believer as described by Paul. In either case the wronged or abandoned spouse is no longer bound by the marriage, and no further action by the church is specified as being required to make it so.

 

[Vico]

One question. Does this policy on remarriage come infallibly from an Ex Cathedra statement? Or, is the source for this from a lower authority?..

Ludwig Ott lists three de fide Dogmas (of nine dogmas pertaining to matrimony, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, six are sent. certa, i.e., theologically certain, but not de fide), including lifelong indivisible community of life when there exists a sacrament (which an annulment declares never existed for a particular couple):

1. Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God.
2. From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
3. The Sacrament of Matrimony bestows Sanctifying Grace on the contracting parties.

 

[PLeeD]

Ludwig Ott lists three de fide Dogmas (of nine dogmas pertaining to matrimony, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, six are sent. certa, i.e., theologically certain, but not de fide), including lifelong indivisible community of life when there exists a sacrament (which an annulment declares never existed for a particular couple):

1. Marriage is a true and proper Sacrament instituted by God.
2. From the sacramental contract of marriage emerges the Bond of Marriage, which binds both marriage partners to a lifelong indivisible community of life.
3. The Sacrament of Matrimony bestows Sanctifying Grace on the contracting parties.

Thanks for the response. I don’t really understand all the terminology.

I guess my question more specifically is, is this an infallible teaching (which I’ve gathered requires an Ex Cathedra statement directly from the Pope), or is it something that could conceivably be modified, e.g. a celibate priesthood?

 

[1beleevr]

I don’t know if it was the other poster’s intent, to derail this thread, by throwing out a single, off-topic and inflammatory remark, maybe it was, who knows… It really doesn’t matter.

The first question in this thread is listed above.

I have read many posts here, where others (non-Catholics mostly) have tried to down-play or minimize the Catholic Church’s strict stance against multiple-marriages. However, I have seen very few posts where non-Catholic members have discussed how their own particular denomination feels about this issue and what they are doing, or have done to correct the problem.

Surely, allowing homosexual marriages, for example and birth control and multi-marriages, can’t possibly strengthen the Holy Sacrament of Marriage, can it?

These three things alone, at the minimum, send a mixed message regarding the importance of the Holy Sacrament Marriage and on a more serious note, may encourage Christian followers to commit grave sin. I believe that this is one of those important, defining issues that might shed some light on, which Church, is truly Christ’s Church.

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” (Mark 9:42)

“My brothers, if anyone among you should stray from the truth and someone bring him back, he should know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19,20)

Your thoughts?

Is it my imagination, or is that plank in your eye getting bigger?

 

[1beleevr]

Wow This is below the belt that’s for sure, Even for you lB. I just have to ask what do you think of Judas? And I can’t help wonder if you blame Jesus for his sins also.

I mean after all wasn’t Judas a follower of Jesus. So if you can blame the CC which is Jesus by the way for the mistakes of the sins of humans, I guess you would have to blame Jesus once again for Judas right?

I mean what would be the real difference. DId they both not commit grave sin? And how about Peter he should get it too. That should be blamed on Jesus also. Peters sin should also be layed at the feet of our Dear Lord also. And Thomas, doubting Thomas lets not forget him. I mean lets not stop there. It started with Judas and will never end until Jesus comes back. ( but he did warn us). But lets face it the RCC is Jesus, so lets lay on the sins of the Leaders, and Priests and Bishops on Jesus.

I mean you just accused the CC of condoning this horrible sin did you not?

Judas played a part in the plan of salvation! I was responding to Jimmy B blasting and accusing other religions!

 

[Vico]

Thanks for the response. I don’t really understand all the terminology.

I guess my question more specifically is, is this an infallible teaching (which I’ve gathered requires an Ex Cathedra statement directly from the Pope), or is it something that could conceivably be modified, e.g. a celibate priesthood?

Dogma de fide means dogma of faith, these are the infallible dogma. This is taught by the Magisterium and can be from tradition, ecumenical council, or ex cathedra.

For a deeper understanding:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48 87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

The dogmas of the faith
88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.
89 There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50
90 The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

 

[Jimmy_B]

Is it my imagination, or is that plank in your eye getting bigger?

Maybe … we are all sinners and therefore, to a certain extent… all hypocrites… I’m trying to make it smaller though…

 

[1beleevr]

Maybe … we are all sinners and therefore, to a certain extent… all hypocrites… I’m trying to make it smaller though…

I also struggle with mine; but then my wife makes me sweep up the sawdust!

 

[1beleevr]

Thanks for the response. I don’t really understand all the terminology.

I guess my question more specifically is, is this an infallible teaching (which I’ve gathered requires an Ex Cathedra statement directly from the Pope), or is it something that could conceivably be modified, e.g. a celibate priesthood?

Hey, PLeeD, welcome to the forum! You are making some good points!

 

[rinnie]

Judas played a part in the plan of salvation! I was responding to Jimmy B blasting and accusing other religions!

I disagree with this but don’t want to get off the subject. Maybe it can be another post in time. But for the record I do not see where Judas betraying Jesus helped me out with the Plan that God had in mind for my salvation

 

[mellowcalico]

MellowCalico,

I hope those verses give you some peace of mind. God does not condemn you! I can’t imagine that your annulment won’t be approved. In any case, just know that God wants you to experience all the fruits of the spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, and so much more!

Thank you… you are very kind.

 

[PLeeD]

Thank you… you are very kind.

Oh yea? You ought to see me behind the wheel in traffic! Sad truth is, I’m kind of a jerk.

The good news is, God is kind.

 

[1beleevr]

I disagree with this but don’t want to get off the subject. Maybe it can be another post in time. But for the record I do not see where Judas betraying Jesus helped me out with the Plan that God had in mind for my salvation

The thing with Jimmy B was regrettable on my part; overreacted to his derogatory remarks about other church’s beliefs on marriage and divorce! Someone had to help get Jesus to the Cross, because the Jewish High Council did not have the authority to execute anyone. I am part of an ever growing group who believe that Judas was right where he was supposd to be, and if not him, it would have been someone else. Also, I can’t believe that Judas was as true a follower of Christ as the others(John 6:70). Jesus was not surprised to learn that Judas was His betrayer! So, you see, like everything else in Scripture, everything was prophesied and came true!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Wowzers. This is a new one. Judas as true a follower as the others? The betrayer of the Son of Man who sold out His Lord for thirty pieces of silver? The man who would go down in infamy for back-stabbing the Son of God and handing Him over to death? I must be missing something here. I think this is a liberal misguided attempt to try and be a good Christian by feeling sorry for a scoundrel with compassion.

Judas played a part, yes. He was necessary. But to think he was as good as the holy and amazing St. Paul that missioned to the Gentiles, ship-wrecked, was pummelled, beaten, rejected, chased, and martyred for Christ? Wow. Or that he was even remotely as holy as men like Peter or John, the steward of Our Lady. Or any of the other great apostles who martyred themselves in the name of Christ? Then he killed himself in a cowardly fashion. Betrayer, suicide victim. Not holy material.

Of course Jesus wasn’t surprised to learn Judas betrayed Him. Jesus predicted it and is prescient. Christ knows everything past, present, future, etc. He’s a God-Man. If he was suprised, we’d all be in trouble…

Also, I can’t believe that Judas was as true a follower of Christ as the others(John 6:70). Jesus was not surprised to learn that Judas was His betrayer! So, you see, like everything else in Scripture, everything was prophesied and came true!

 

[1beleevr]

Wowzers. This is a new one. Judas as true a follower as the others? The betrayer of the Son of Man who sold out His Lord for thirty pieces of silver? The man who would go down in infamy for back-stabbing the Son of God and handing Him over to death? I must be missing something here. I think this is a liberal misguided attempt to try and be a good Christian by feeling sorry for a scoundrel with compassion.

Judas played a part, yes. He was necessary. But to think he was as good as the holy and amazing St. Paul that missioned to the Gentiles, ship-wrecked, was pummelled, beaten, rejected, chased, and martyred for Christ? Wow. Or that he was even remotely as holy as men like Peter or John, the steward of Our Lady. Or any of the other great apostles who martyred themselves in the name of Christ? Then he killed himself in a cowardly fashion. Betrayer, suicide victim. Not holy material.

Of course Jesus wasn’t surprised to learn Judas betrayed Him. Jesus predicted it and is prescient. Christ knows everything past, present, future, etc. He’s a God-Man. If he was suprised, we’d all be in trouble…

The issue of Judas’s true nature or someone’s perception of it was raised by a catholic poster some time back, when people were discussing backsliding and falling away, and I don’t remember who it was, but they said something to the effect that Judas was the perfect example of one who had walked with Jesus, been close to Him, and fell into sin! I countered with, I believed that his heart was dierty from the beginning. Jesus knew he was a devil(John 6:70), but also knew the time was not right for Judas to be exposed. The Sanhedrin had to find a way to convince the Romans that jesus needed to die; but knew that they could not do it themselves. It was God’s perfect plan played out to perfection. So, no, I do not, nor have I ever(especially after learning more about him) believed that Judas was remotely as holy as Peter, Paul, or even John! God used Judas just like Satan did, and the results were, well, eternal!