Divorce - Annulment - Remarriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter formercatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

formercatholic

Guest
I need thorough answer(s) for the following situation:

Wife abandons husband for another man. Divorce follows and civil remarriage with another man. Annulment petition is denied in the second and third instances by the Rota. Abandoned spouse keeps vows remains single, believes marriage is a Sacrament and should be healed. Wife and her new man have two children. The Sacramental marriage bore five children.

In view of the present teaching that there are two equal ends of marriage as opposed to the former teaching that there were two hierarchical ends with the good of the spouse being secondary to the proper catholic raising of the children, how can remaining with the adulterous spouse be justified in view also of two annulment decisions upholding the Sacrament?

Abandoned spouse opposed divorce and annulment and has been endlessly castigated by clerics for his defense of a Sacramental marriage. That is why he is a former catholic and will remain so until there is a fundamental change in the Catholic Church involving canonical sanctions prohibiting wrongful divorce and holding accountable clerics who encourage divorce/annulments.

Please be thorough. This is a true scenario.
 
that the annulment process has been abused in some countries and some dioceses is without doubt, since the Vatican has seen cause to address those problems. the fact remains that the Church considers every marriage valid until proven otherwise. According to canon law consent makes the marriage, and consent cannot be revoked by any earthly authority. If the marriage tribunal determines after its investigation that full, free consent of both parties was not given, or could not be given, for whatever reason under canon law or natural law, then no marriage existed, therefore no sacrament occured. A decree of nullity does not undo a sacramental marriage, since no marriage existed. The injured party in this case has left the church because of refusal to believe in the God-given authority of the Catholic Church to mediate and rule on what is and what is not a valid sacrament.
 
No one cares to venture an opinion? But one?

Does this appear to be a complicated issue?
 
40.png
formercatholic:
That is why he is a former catholic and will remain so until there is a fundamental change in the Catholic Church involving canonical sanctions prohibiting wrongful divorce and holding accountable clerics who encourage divorce/annulments.
Click to expand...
Ain’t happening. So I guess you (oops, I mean he) will stay a former Catholic forever.

As long as a church is made up of humans, it’s flawed. The Holy Father has said so with his apologies.

I am impressed that the annulment stuff went to the Rota.

Let me mention a little about my own case. My wife had been a SoBaptist who married a Lutheran. She needed an annulment to be married to me in the Catholic Church. I told her (and I meant it) that I would marry her regardless. But, thanks to the process and the Diocese of Belleville, I didn’t have to do it that way.

I’m sorry for “his” circumstance and “his” bitterness toward the Church.

I’ll pray for “him”.

John
 
The abandoned husband does not have to remain with the unfaithful spouse. Yet, it was a valid sacramental marriage, which is indissoluable.

Sounds like the abandoned husband has a heavy cross to bear and has said to the Church, “I don’t want to carry such a cross, so I abandon the one true faith.”

I suggest imitation of Christ instead of abandoning the faith.
 
40.png
formercatholic:
No one cares to venture an opinion? But one?

Does this appear to be a complicated issue?
Click to expand...
What it appears to be is you asking people who are not fully qualified for an answer. I’m sorry, but I would strongly suggest that you go to your local Bishop with this matter. I also have a funny feeling that there’s more to this story… (No offense intended). I know you are hurt, but that doesn’t change the truth of the faith, regardless of what individual people do or say.

Have you considered offering this question to Fr Serpa on the AAA forum? I suspect he might be able to give you much better advice.

I promise I will keep you in my prayers: especially this one:

Hail, holy Queen, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope. To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve: to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary! Amen.

and this one:

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that any one who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins my Mother; to thee do I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful; O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me, Amen.
 
Dear FormerCatholic,

I don’t understand your scenario. If the Catholic Church denied the annulment petitions by the woman, what cause would he have to blame and leave the Catholic Church? Please explain.

Dear PuzzleAnnie,

It is not true that mere consent “cannot be revoked by any earthly authority.” The canonical fact is that it is the consummation of the marriage by which marriage cannot be revoked by any earthly authority. An unconsummated marriage (that is, where merely the consent is present) can be dissolved by the Petrine privilege if the spouses agree that one or both thereafter decide to profess religious vows. Also, the Pauline privilege allows a bishop to dissolve the a marriage.

God bless,

Greg
 
It depends on what you mean by just. If you mean justice to Marriage you have been thrust into a higher expectation of it’s demands by these circumstances. You are called to be a living witness to the indissolubility of the matrimonial bond. Believe me, it is a high calling. a modern martyrdom. It’s call is to the very front of the battle with the beast and the evil feminine spirit that rides it.

It is an opportunity to offer the future generations grace for the healing of marriage and family in that your suffering would be redemptive for you and others if done in the surrender of self that obedience to the Church’s judgement demands.

Persecuted Christians rejoiced at the opportunity to forgive knowing it added power to their prayers.

I hope and pray you put your shoulder to the beam of Christ’s cross and help Him carry it with the Church as we approach our baptism into Glory.
 
Dear Churchmilitant,

Three times I have been informed that I have been logged in and each time after composing letters for 15 minutes each I have been told I was not logged in and lost my post, after sending it in. It was not cutoff by the computer timer.

Sorry but that is enough for now. I did want to reply. I am on a timed computer so this is fruitless and not worth becoming angry over.
 
Church Militant:
What it appears to be is you asking people who are not fully qualified for an answer. I’m sorry, but I would strongly suggest that you go to your local Bishop with this matter. I also have a funny feeling that there’s more to this story… (No offense intended). I know you are hurt, but that doesn’t change the truth of the faith, regardless of what individual people do or say.

Have you considered offering this question to Fr Serpa on the AAA forum? I suspect he might be able to give you much better advice.

]

I know considering it was less then four hours on a Friday night.

Once a Sacrament is created it can not be dissolved. If there was a defect in the creation of the Sacament, then the Sacrament never occured. I know I shouldn’t compare it to a civil contract, but there is a difference in breeching a contract after its creation and having a contract be void due condition not met at the time of creation. I know the civil law treats each scenrio different.

Civil Divorce is merely the distribution of joint property of a legally recognized domestic relationship between the parties. In civil unions there are no promises to keep, basically that the parties get the live together until one person want to leave and breaks the union and leaves without any other reason then they want to.

There is no remedy for violation of the Sacrament after it was created. Sometimes for financial reasons, a spouse in the Sacrament of Marriage needs to get a civil restraining order, a civil child support order, or a civil divorce. But as a Catholic, even if your spouse disolves a civil union creates another, you are bound by your beliefs and should act in good standing.

I couldn’t imagine my husband leaving me for another woman or man, or just abandoning me outirght. But it doesn’t excuse me for the promise I made not only to him, but God. The Sacrament of Marraige doesn’t call me to stay with an abusive man or live in poverty if my husband wastes our joint resources. If I need civil recourse regarding property and financial issues, then I’m allowed to do so. If my husband decides to become a jerk, I don’t have to remain physically remain with him.

The Church can’t prohibit what civil courts grant.
Click to expand...
 
My understanding could be flawed, but a civil divorce,and the dissolution of a marriage by the Church are often two very different things. In civil law, divorce ,which is to say the grounds for divorce,have been considerably liberalized over the years, while the Church’s position has remained relatively unchanged. There aren’t any easy answers here,but I would suggest that your first stop be at the Tribunal in your Diocese. Cannon Law will be the determining factor here, and I would hope you’re able to link up with a priest or person able to assist you with what must be a heart wrenching problem.
 
To all who have answered,

I posted here first, in order to not be a bother to the apologists’ site which I read was becoming a catch-all.

Indeed Fr. Sherpa has privately contacted me and we will continue our correspondence when he has the time, for which I am grateful.

I think I did not make my question clear. Sorry if I confused the issue
but I will like get an answer from Father, in his time.

Thank you all.
 
There is a pressing need in the Catholic Church for a church-wide response to the huge numbers of Catholics who vote with their feet against marital fidelity by simply living together. But, on a human
level who can fault them since marriage is a huge gamble?

One of the most serious abuses that I have seen is the “brother and sister” living together situation referred to in a letter by Cardinal Ratzinger in about 1994. In this letter this “construct” is OK’d by the Church “for the good of the children”. I know with moral certainty this is the “justification” my wife uses for remaining with her lover, in the face of two concurrent Rotal decisions upholding the Sacrament between she and I. I have also seen many references to it in other situations. I believe it is widely applied in what should be condemned Pastoral practices. But, I have NEVER seen a comprehensive analysis of this arrangement based upon Moral Theological evaluation using current Church teaching and I believe such a norm or norms are BADLY needed in published form. And I believe they need to be enforced with Canonical sanctions just as abortion is. Both are fundamental pro-life issues and I believe the current Church practices are out of balance and consequently contibuting to many of the problems they should be solving. I can testify to the fact that bad pastoral advice/practice encouraged my wife in her behavior and continues to propagate these errors without end.

The Ratzinger letter, I believe, preceeded the development of the
two equal ends of marriage teaching that is now the norm in the Catholic Church. Previously, there had been a hierarchical arrangement of marital ends with the “raising of the children” taking precedent over “the good of the spouses”. Presently and forever, pending further development, this will remain the case.

I cannot see with these two equal ends how, NOW, such an arrangement could ever be justified since I can envision no argument wherein it is for the “good of the Sacramental spouses” to live apart while a living arrangement with a non-spouse, as “brother and sister” could coexist. It seems this, by definition, is NOT for the good of the Sacramental spouses. Since the two ends are now equal, the “raising of the children” could not ever be enhanced to the detriment of the “good of the Sacramental spouses”. They must BOTH be encouraged not one or the other.

I believe NOW that the Ratzinger “construct” is outmoded and moral forbidden, even in the case of a wrongly abandoned spouse
who finds themselves in such a situation. Previously, I believed that only an abandoned spouse could utilize the “brother and sister” “construct” licitly, since they had no spouse to return to who was open to healing the marriage. With two equal ends that seems moot since living with another person, however you live with them if they are of the opposite sex, is detrimental to “the good of the spouses” which is supposed to deepen their relationship in pursuit of emulating Christ, not encourage their separate lives with other people.

I have heard the argument that a childless Sacramental marriage
and a civil marriage with children(who need parents) could be a qualifying case but that does not account for the harm done to the “good of the Sacramental spouses” and that Sacramental marriage, that remaining with a lover causes by its mere existance, even as a"brother and sister". This is a red herring and
a cancer on marriage.

Furthermore, I see little or no understanding of what scandal really is, only the secular equivalent, which is merely sensationalism.

Any situation neutral or negative which causes another to sin or be tempted to sin, or to despair(which can often lead to sin) is a scandal and is gravely wrong. More attention is needed to this from the pulpit and in Pastoral practice. I have seen this
criticized by clerics and those in pastoral positions.

These issues need far more attention than they are receiving and
cause much harm to marriage. It is only through marriage that children should appropriately enter this world and be raised. It is only through marriage that abortion can be addressed properly.

The Catholic Church needs to link the protection of the family and marriage to its prolife efforts along with the resources of its prolife efforts. Until this is done its efforts are disjointed and harmful.
 
Furthermore, I see little or no understanding of what scandal really is, only the secular equivalent, which is merely sensationalism.

Any situation neutral or negative which causes another to sin or be tempted to sin, or to despair(which can often lead to sin) is a scandal and is gravely wrong.
Click to expand...
We should never deliberately attempt to lead someone toward sin. But scandal can be unintentional (not deliberate). I would not automatically assume that it is gravely wrong when one does not intend to cause scandal, but merely knows that it could be a possible effect of one’s actions. Of course, you would still need a strong reason to do the action in that case.

I’m so sorry about your wife, btw.

I agree, I think the faithful could use a little more direction and clearly published guidelines!
 
40.png
formercatholic:
Wife and her new man have two children. The Sacramental marriage bore five children.
Click to expand...
Who got custody of the 5?

formercatholic said:
how can remaining with the adulterous spouse be justified in view also of two annulment decisions upholding the Sacrament?
Click to expand...

This statement is unclear. Who is remaining with the adulterous spouse? Are you referring to her present husband, or yourself?

I would like to respond to several points, but a clarification would help. Who is it you think there should be canonical sanctions against? Her? Her new spouse? Both of them?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercatholic
Wife and her new man have two children. The Sacramental marriage bore five children.

Who got custody of the 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercatholic
how can remaining with the adulterous spouse be justified in view also of two annulment decisions upholding the Sacrament?

This statement is unclear. Who is remaining with the adulterous spouse? Are you referring to her present husband, or yourself?

I would like to respond to several points, but a clarification would help. Who is it you think there should be canonical sanctions against? Her? Her new spouse? Both of them?

Nice reply OTM, thank you.

My wife got custody of our five children.

My wife left me for the man she remains with and is civilly married to. I remain faithful to our vows and alone.

I refer often to her “present husband” as her lover. He is, but as Jesus said, the man she is with is NOT her husband.

There should be canonical sanctions against a spouse who wrongly divorces their valid spouse.

In this case, since the lover converted to Catholicism, while living with my wife, he should not have been allowed to convert in the first place under these circumstances and he should face the same sanctions she should, which in my opinion should be excommunication remaining in effect until a complete accounting of all acts detrimental to the marriage are known and dealt with in a constructive and healing manner, unto and through death.

I also believe that every catholic who has cooperated with the lovers, particularly among the clergy, but lay people as well, and not witnessed to the sinfulness of the continued adultery should be sanctioned according to the level of their cooperation based upon a moral theological evaluation of the circumstances.
 
40.png
formercatholic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercatholic
Wife and her new man have two children. The Sacramental marriage bore five children.

Who got custody of the 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by formercatholic
how can remaining with the adulterous spouse be justified in view also of two annulment decisions upholding the Sacrament?

This statement is unclear. Who is remaining with the adulterous spouse? Are you referring to her present husband, or yourself?

I would like to respond to several points, but a clarification would help. Who is it you think there should be canonical sanctions against? Her? Her new spouse? Both of them?

Nice reply OTM, thank you.

My wife got custody of our five children.

My wife left me for the man she remains with and is civilly married to. I remain faithful to our vows and alone.

I refer often to her “present husband” as her lover. He is, but as Jesus said, the man she is with is NOT her husband.

There should be canonical sanctions against a spouse who wrongly divorces their valid spouse.

In this case, since the lover converted to Catholicism, while living with my wife, he should not have been allowed to convert in the first place under these circumstances and he should face the same sanctions she should, which in my opinion should be excommunication remaining in effect until a complete accounting of all acts detrimental to the marriage are known and dealt with in a constructive and healing manner, unto and through death.

I also believe that every catholic who has cooperated with the lovers, particularly among the clergy, but lay people as well, and not witnessed to the sinfulness of the continued adultery should be sanctioned according to the level of their cooperation based upon a moral theological evaluation of the circumstances.
Click to expand...
That did clarify things. It’s always good to here of a newly baptized Catholic. I agree about his acceptability as a Catholic unless he is unaware of the grave state he is in. I assume he was baptized and renounced Satan. I’m no expert on such things but it seems that if he knows what the Church’s view is concerning marriage then the validity of the baptism is questionable. I would think that would have come up when he was a catachumen. Surely your wife is aware.
 
formercatholic,

You said:
the Ratzinger “construct” is outmoded and moral forbidden
Click to expand...
I disagree.

Cardinal Ratzinger states:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CONCERNING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION
***BY THE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED MEMBERS OF THE FAITHFUL, ***14 Sep 1994
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html
The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they 'take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal…
Click to expand...
This is in accord with, and in fact quotes from Pope John Paul II’s 1982 Apostolic Exhortation *Familiaris Consortio, *which states:
Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.” (quoting from a 1980 Homily by Pope John Paul II)
Click to expand...
Firstly, this is not a 1994 “Ratzinger construct” as it is in complete conformity with Pope John Paul II’s teaching from 1982 and 1980.

In fact, I don’t even believe this to be a “Pope John Paul II construct.” Observe,

Under the papacy of Pope Paul VI, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s document of April 11, 1973, addressed to Diocesan Bishops censuring the admittance of invalidly married persons to the sacraments, the final paragraph reads:
“With regard to admission to the sacraments, the local ordinaries will also please, on the one hand, stress the observance of the current discipline of the church while, on the other hand, take care that pastors of souls follow up with particular solicitude those who are living in an irregular union and, in addition to other correct means, use the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum.”
Click to expand...
On March 21, 1975, the same Sacred Congregation explained the phrase “the approved practice of the Church in the internal forum” in the following way:
“The couples may be allowed to receive the sacraments on two conditions, that they try to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles and that they receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal.”
Click to expand...
Secondly, I don’t see anything immoral in this teaching. Could the wife and/or clergy be immorally applying this teaching? Certainly. However I don’t see the teaching itself to be contrary to the faith.

If two people live continently, in what way are they committing adultery?
 
According to Catholic teaching, it seems to me that the wife can licitly remaining in an irregular union if the following conditions are met:
  1. She repents of her past sin of adultery and her sin against the indissoluability of marriage, and she lives continently. She receives sacramental absolution.
  2. Presuming she has children to raise , “for the children’s upbringing” the man and woman may have serious reasons for not satisfying the obligation to separate.
  3. They receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal, continuing to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
3) They receive the sacraments in churches in which they are not known so that they will not create any scandal, continuing to live according to the demands of Christian moral principles.
Click to expand...

But what should they do if a disgruntled ex-husband follows them around and writes letters of complaint to the bishop where they try to go to church?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top