Divorce

[Luvtosew]

In fact, what Christ meant was a decree of nullity. Remember, in His time there were many divorced and remarried Jewish people. All those who had divorced a lawful spouse and remarried were married to UNLAWFUL SPOUSES and in fact, they SHOULD separate from those to whom they were married unlawfully. Nothing to do with ‘faithfulness’.

and where did this come from, I have 3 Bibles that say unfaithfullness.

 

[Luvtosew]

Also the OP did not commit adultry, tried for an annullment and got refused so he got married elsewhere, now what sin did he commit that the church can not forgive???

Now what sin is it that Jesus would not forgive??? Please tell me.

its ok to get a vasectomy and be on birth control and be forgiven.
Its ok for divorced and remarried Prostestants to become Catholic,

So I ask is this a Catholic sin or a Jesus sin, because if it is a Jesus sin then he should be forgiven just as a Prostestant would be.??

and as punishment for his wifes behavior and him not wanting to continue in his marriage, he needs to remain single the rest of his life in order for God to maybe forgive this awful thing that happened , divorce. A penance for the rest of his life.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Like I said before, he is guilty of nothing but gets punished for it. Regardless of how you try to justify it, the guy did nothing wrong.

I say we punish him anyway for other things that he didn’t do.

I am sorry that you persist in this mistaken viewpoint, Rascalking. Perhaps when you call yourself nothing but a Catholic, you will understand. This is not the Church punishing anyone. This person wanted to “dissolve” his marriage. There is no such thing, and God does not dissolve vows taken in front of him. It is a burden that people commit infidelity after marriage, yes. And his wife may not have taken her vows seriously, but that is not what the tribunal decided (assuming it was done, sometimes these are trolls). He should not remarry until the annulment was decided. Now he comes here and posts an angry, condemning diatribe accusing the Church of cruelty because she won’t allow him to take the Eucharist. And many people who do not grasp the reality immediately jump to his defense.

1ke is completely correct in her analysis. We cannot “dissolve” what God has joined.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ergo,

No feelings here just logic:

The "It’s been a while but I believe the marriage vows say things like ‘in sickness and in health’, and not a word about, "unless you are unfaithful’.” comment is interesting. So according to that logic, in my case if my then wife did divorce me, and the guy she was having the affair with divorce his wife and they both married. I would have to remain single and lonely for the rest of my life? But those ones who also pledged to follow and accept God and his teachings turn around and reject Him and the vows and marriage also is acceptable. I totally disagree with you, I am happy that YOUR annulment was granted, but it makes me wonder if it was not how would your opinion be now? I am not trying to cause an argument, but when one refuses to be married and they turn away from the their spouse and even worse turn away from God, they forfeit the blessings of the Church, unless THEY repent and return to God. The faithful should not have to be made to suffer for the actions of those who reject God.

The “meant was a decree of nullity” passage has been translated many times over, so that in itself is also in question as to “nullity” verses “adultery” or “fornication”.

I maybe wrong, and if I am I pray that God forgives me, as I will forgive those who transgressed against me. But that does not mean that I have to accept the actions of a woman who refuses to be married to me, or wants me only until someone else comes along for a few years of fornication. And I whole heartily refuse to be with anyone who rejects God.

Winter

Winter Warlock,

A husband or wife who is wronged by the other spouse has indeed, been wronged. There is no punishment by the Church for actions taken by the other. You can still receive the Eucharist if your spouse has divorced you due to infidelity.

What you cannot do is re-marry, unless your marriage is declared invalid by the tribunal. It is like being a permanent widow or widower. Well, you actually CAN re-marry, but then you are no longer eligible for the Eucharist. You can attend Mass even then, but you should not receive the Eucharist.

It is very sad when a spouse breaks the vows, leaving the other spouse to honor the vows that were broken. In today’s society, everyone has a "right’ to happiness with some other person, but in God’s law, there is no such right. God heard your vows the first time, he sealed them, and while there are some remedies in case of invalidity, the Church cannot simply ignore God’s law to make people happy.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ergo,

No feelings here just logic:

The "It’s been a while but I believe the marriage vows say things like ‘in sickness and in health’, and not a word about, "unless you are unfaithful’.” comment is interesting. So according to that logic, in my case if my then wife did divorce me, and the guy she was having the affair with divorce his wife and they both married. I would have to remain single and lonely for the rest of my life? But those ones who also pledged to follow and accept God and his teachings turn around and reject Him and the vows and marriage also is acceptable. I totally disagree with you, I am happy that YOUR annulment was granted, but it makes me wonder if it was not how would your opinion be now? I am not trying to cause an argument, but when one refuses to be married and they turn away from the their spouse and even worse turn away from God, they forfeit the blessings of the Church, unless THEY repent and return to God. The faithful should not have to be made to suffer for the actions of those who reject God. I would feel exactly the same. Marriage is either valid or not valid, and if valid, it remains valid through sickness and health, richer or poor, faithfulness or unfaithfulness. That is Christ’s teaching, not mine, not man’s. (I’m a woman, so it’s not ‘woman’s’ teaching either).

If your wife were unfaithful and divorced you and remarried, do you really think she is doing ‘right’? It is not a question of her getting something that you don’t --it is a question of her doing ‘wrong’ and you doing ‘right.’

Two wrongs do not make a right.

The “meant was a decree of nullity” passage has been translated many times over, so that in itself is also in question as to “nullity” verses “adultery” or “fornication”. But the teaching of the Church has been consistent. The Church has NEVER taught that ‘adultery’ or ‘fornication’ could dissolve a valid marriage.

I maybe wrong, and if I am I pray that God forgives me, as I will forgive those who transgressed against me. But that does not mean that I have to accept the actions of a woman who refuses to be married to me, or wants me only until someone else comes along for a few years of fornication. And I whole heartily refuse to be with anyone who rejects God.

Winter

Again, I (personally) was separated from my spouse for some years before the divorce. I took the necessary steps to protect myself and my children, and that is fine, the Church is fine with that. However, once I was divorced, as a Catholic my duty is to the Church, and if the Church had determined I had a valid marriage, even though my spouse’s actions (and I will not go into them for mine and my children’s protection) were gravely wrong, I would have abided by them…

The Church does NOT require a person to live with an abusive spouse. But the abusive does not ‘dissolve’ the marriage or invalidate the marriage, and even if it means that the ‘innocent spouse’ must live a celibate life until the spouse’s death–even if they remarry, and yes my spouse did remarry–doesn’t mean that he got something that I’m entitled to. Until the decree went through he was in the wrong for doing so and he had to ‘fix things’ in order to get right. But if the decree had not gone through and he had stayed married to the other woman, I STILL would not be ‘entitled’ to go and marry another man.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is not true. You chose to separate yourself from the Church. You can always repent and return.

I have a question. Let’s say he wanted to repent and return to the church. Would he have to leave his current wife because the church doesn’t recognize it, and they consider him to be committing adultery?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Also the OP did not commit adultry, tried for an annullment and got refused so he got married elsewhere, now what sin did he commit that the church can not forgive??? Bigamy. He is still married, validly married. And he isn’t repenting, so how can the Church forgive someone who is not sorry and has not stopped sinning?

Now what sin is it that Jesus would not forgive??? Please tell me. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and any sin which a person persisted in and did not ask forgiveness. If a person does not repent, Jesus cannot forgive that person in spite of himself, right?

its ok to get a vasectomy and be on birth control and be forgiven. but you are only forgiven if you repent and stop your sin.
Its ok for divorced and remarried Prostestants to become Catholic, but only if they have regulated their marriage situation. You will find that if a validly married Protestant were to divorce, and remarry, and then seek to become Catholic, that the Church COULD NOT (not ‘would not’ but COULD NOT) do so until the person had received a decree of nullity, or else separated from the second spouse or lived as brother and sister permanently).

So I ask is this a Catholic sin or a Jesus sin, because if it is a Jesus sin then he should be forgiven just as a Prostestant would be.?? You appear to have had some wrong information. This is a Catholic sin AND Jesus sin–the two are not in opposition. Catholics don’t have ‘more’ sins they count than Jesus does. Again, a validly married Protestant in an irregular marriage (divorced, remarried) could NOT become Catholic.

and as punishment for his wifes behavior and him not wanting to continue in his marriage, he needs to remain single the rest of his life in order for God to maybe forgive this awful thing that happened , divorce. A penance for the rest of his life.

It is NOT a punishment, it is a consequence. If I jump off a cliff, I’m going to fall. . .not because God is ‘punishing’ me but because it’s a consequence of the nature of gravity. It wouldn’t matter if I fell because I was trying to commit suicide or whether I was saving the life of some other person–IOW, by YOUR logic, if I were to go off a cliff while doing a ‘kind’ action I shouldn’t be PUNISHED by death, right? Dead is dead. It’s not punishment. If you are in a valid marriage you are in a valid marriage. The other spouse if he remarries is doing wrong. Do you want to do wrong as well? He isn’t being punished because he didn’t want to continue the marriage. . .it was a valid marriage and the consequence is that he is a validly married man in the eyes of GOD (that’s GOD).

If you were married and your husband were paralyzed, would you be entitled to marry another man rather than live without sex the rest of your life?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I have a question. Let’s say he wanted to repent and return to the church. Would he have to leave his current wife because the church doesn’t recognize it, and they consider him to be committing adultery?

He would have to discuss this with his priest, but (especially if there are children) they could still live together but live as brother and sister (no sex). And he could still pursue a decree of nullity. For example, suppose he had married his first wife in Peoria and pursued a decree of nullity from the diocese Peoria was in, and the tribunal denied it. But suppose he had moved to Annapolis after he remarried. He may now seek the decree from the diocese where Annapolis is. It might still be denied but it might be that the tribunal in Annapolis would have some people who were more expert and found that after all there was something which the people in Peoria had missed seeing.

The absolute best thing to do for anybody in this situation is to talk to the priest and then to do what must be done, even if it is hard. I think most people would think it was harder to live in the same house with a spouse and not have sex than it would be to separate and live apart (and it would indeed be hard) but it’s not impossible. Again, especially if there are children to consider, the Church is not ‘demanding’ that the couple must live totally apart. . .only that they obey Christ who said, "go and SIN NO MORE’. IOW, if they want to be forgiven they can be but then they have to do something on their part to keep from sinning.

 

[Luvtosew]

** Five years past after the divorce and I met what is now my wife. I went down the path of dissolving my marriage, being told that there shouldn’t be a problem and also relieving me of several hundred pounds in the process. The verdict came back that the marriage could not be desoulved, despite my ex-wife being guilty. Because of the outcome I remarried in a Cof E church to my lovely wife, have had a child and my children from my previous marriage live with us.**

Now this is what the original poster said, he was divorced (on advice from his Priest at teh time) , met his second wife, tried to get an annullment , paid and was turned down dispite his ex wife being quilty, so he got married in another church, so why turn down the annullment that he applied for before he got remarried , now taking everthing he told us was true??

 

[ahollars]

He would have to discuss this with his priest, but (especially if there are children) they could still live together but live as brother and sister (no sex). And he could still pursue a decree of nullity. For example, suppose he had married his first wife in Peoria and pursued a decree of nullity from the diocese Peoria was in, and the tribunal denied it. But suppose he had moved to Annapolis after he remarried. He may now seek the decree from the diocese where Annapolis is. It might still be denied but it might be that the tribunal in Annapolis would have some people who were more expert and found that after all there was something which the people in Peoria had missed seeing.

The absolute best thing to do for anybody in this situation is to talk to the priest and then to do what must be done, even if it is hard. I think most people would think it was harder to live in the same house with a spouse and not have sex than it would be to separate and live apart (and it would indeed be hard) but it’s not impossible. Again, especially if there are children to consider, the Church is not ‘demanding’ that the couple must live totally apart. . .only that they obey Christ who said, "go and SIN NO MORE’. IOW, if they want to be forgiven they can be but then they have to do something on their part to keep from sinning.

I can personally attest to the “living as brother and sister” part. This is no easy cross to bear, but I believe that God looked at me with favor by giving me a quick response from my tribunal. I took it seriously once I decided that I wanted to come home, and I followed all the instructions that I was given.

The OP needs to try again, and this time, make sure that every detail is included no matter how insignificant it may seem. In my case, my ex-wife had no intention of being faithful (she lied when she took her vows). How long you were married has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

** Five years past after the divorce and I met what is now my wife. I went down the path of dissolving my marriage, being told that there shouldn’t be a problem and also relieving me of several hundred pounds in the process. The verdict came back that the marriage could not be desoulved, despite my ex-wife being guilty. Because of the outcome I remarried in a Cof E church to my lovely wife, have had a child and my children from my previous marriage live with us.**

Now this is what the original poster said, he was divorced (on advice from his Priest at teh time) , met his second wife, tried to get an annullment , paid and was turned down dispite his ex wife being quilty, so he got married in another church, so why turn down the annullment that he applied for before he got remarried , now taking everthing he told us was true??

I think you don’t quite understand what is being said.

He got a divorce. He was told by the priest ‘no problem’. But priests cannot guarantee 'no problem. (this is a fact that is very apparent in the paperwork). About the ‘money’, it costs money to have people do the legal work but fees can be very low and NOBODY is denied if they cannot pay. So the money is beside the point.

Again, the adultery is not germane to whether or not the marriage is valid. Adultery doesn’t invalidate a marriage. Never did.

You don’t get an automatic annulment. and you CERTAINLY as a Catholic do not marry outside the Church.

 

[Luvtosew]

What are valid reasons for an annullment?

 

[ValPal]

Again, the adultery is not germane to whether or not the marriage is valid. Adultery doesn’t invalidate a marriage. Never did.

OTOH, the belief that adultery invalidates marriage is germane. It clearly and absolutely indicates that the person that took the marital vow does not believe that marriage is permanent. It is similar to having a pre-nup agreement that sets all sorts of conditions on what happens when the marriage breaks down.

 

[Rascalking]

Suppose you were going in to see your doctor.

Suppose you were terrified of dying and illness.

Now, the doctor had examined you and found that you had a terminal illness.

I would like to hear from all the people who are lambasting Ike and me. . .

What should the doctor tell you?
]

The doctor would explain it to you with compassion.

Just because what your saying is “true” doesn’t give you a license to be as cruel, harsh, or rude as possible. A doctor wouldn’t do any of that. In fact, I’m no expert, but usually when your doctor tells you about a terminal illness, he or she will often show you how to get counseling/support care. They won’t just say, “Pancreatic cancer. Your finished. Good luck” and pat you on the back.

I’m not accusing anyone of anything either, but often times when this topic comes up, people seem to go out of their way to be as nasty as possible.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You can’t BUY an annulment!



This stress on how much money the OP paid, did everything “right,” is getting on my nerves. He did several things WRONG in the eyes of God, even though he feels he is being cheated out of something he PAID FOR (the annulment, although he uses the term “dissolve” instead).

Grrr…

 

[TheRealJuliane]

The doctor would explain it to you with compassion.

Just because what your saying is “true” doesn’t give you a license to be as cruel, harsh, or rude as possible. A doctor wouldn’t do any of that. In fact, I’m no expert, but usually when your doctor tells you about a terminal illness, he or she will often show you how to get counseling/support care. They won’t just say, “Pancreatic cancer. Your finished. Good luck” and pat you on the back.

I’m not accusing anyone of anything either, but often times when this topic comes up, people seem to go out of their way to be as nasty as possible.

Rascal, NO ONE was nasty to the OP. Facts were stated. His post was trollish and successfully stirred up several otherwise sensible forum members. Nothing but the facts were ever stated, no one condemned him in any way.

 

[Rascalking]

Rascal, NO ONE was nasty to the OP. Facts were stated. His post was trollish and successfully stirred up several otherwise sensible forum members. Nothing but the facts were ever stated, no one condemned him in any way.

I didn’t say anyone condemned him-trollish or not it makes good points, actually.

And yes-people did respond-and often seem to respond to this topic with particular venom and meaness.

Sorry. I think I made some good points.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The doctor would explain it to you with compassion.

Just because what your saying is “true” doesn’t give you a license to be as cruel, harsh, or rude as possible. A doctor wouldn’t do any of that. In fact, I’m no expert, but usually when your doctor tells you about a terminal illness, he or she will often show you how to get counseling/support care. They won’t just say, “Pancreatic cancer. Your finished. Good luck” and pat you on the back.

I’m not accusing anyone of anything either, but often times when this topic comes up, people seem to go out of their way to be as nasty as possible.

I agree, explain with compassion. . . but just in looking at this thread the two main people who responded with “I am sorry you’re going through this but the Church is right where you’re saying it’s wrong” were Ike and me. . .and I don’t think we were cruel, harsh, rude, etc.

I mean, was I supposed to say, “oh wait, everybody here is right, you’ve had a perfectly horrid time from the bad old church, what is the Church thinking of, they have got to stop their teaching and make things ‘right’ for you’? Pretty much that is the attitude that quite a few posters seem to have – not just sympathy for the OP (I have plenty of sympathy) but downright anger and a sense that the OP isn’t just having a bad experience for which he needs a loving word of ‘hang in there it will be all right in the end’ but 'the OP has been WRONGED by the Church and the Church needs to FIX THE WRONG.”

I know you’re not saying that, Rascal, and I know you and I both feel sorrow and sympathy for somebody who is in a bad situation. . . but the fact is, I would have MORE sympathy if he had not only been faithful in the first marriage, but in the second as well. . .meaning, if he had NOT tried to marry outside the Church.

But he has had his cake and eaten it, so to speak. He has all the goodwill for a ‘wronged spouse’ (which is certainly the case in the first marriage). . .but he himself is wronging his second spouse, because he is NOT married to her in the eyes of God. And if his first wife was unfaithful to him in the beginning, he is now being unfaithful to her. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[SeaShoreGirl]

Admittiadly there are people on CAF who do not believe in annulments.

Some even seem to gleefully dance about when a person is denied. Even if that person was denied unjustly.

CAF can be very cruel and often misses the whole thing where Jesus showed how law was given not to punish but in love.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

A lot of the problem that seems to come up around this topic has to deal with the fact that marriage is both a sacred contract and a civil one. And the sacred and civil natures are no longer the same.

In civil marriage, a civil divorce can be granted for nearly any cause or indeed in some states for ‘no fault’ or a whim. And once a civil divorce has been granted, there is usually no impediment to a second, third, fourth etc civil marriage.

Catholics who see their ‘nice friends’ and ‘nice people’ go off and marry, remarry etc. become conditioned to the idea that this is what marriage is. It’s not ‘til death do us part’, it’s “til whenever one or both parties decide they no longer wish to be married.” If the state allows divorced and remarriage for something like adultery, they reason, why doesn’t the Church?

And of course, the fact that Christianity is divided itself does not help. If all Christian churches treated marriage like the indissoluable sacrament Christ gave us, we’d have a nice unified group explaining, “Marriage is a sacrament. You can’t dissolve a sacrament.” You wouldn’t have people divorcing unless it was a case of legitimate abuse and the people divorcing would not remarry, whether they were the ‘guilty’ or the innocent party, and while everybody would sympathize with the innocent party, NOBODY would ‘expect’ them to remarry, and everybody would HONOR them for their acceptance of a cross and would go to great pains to point them out as good examples of faithful Christian virtues of piety, resignation, fortitude, temperance, etc.

But when you have other Christian churches having no problem buying into the secular worldview and permitting divorce, remarriage etc. in THEIR Churches, once again the Catholics are painted as the bad guys, the intolerant, the punitive, yadda yadda blah.

's’ok though. Jesus warned us that if we followed Him we should expect ‘the world’ to mock, insult, etc. And in the Psalms King David spoke of how he could have taken betrayals from his enemies but how he was crushed when ‘his intimate friend’ betrayed him. We don’t expect betrayals from our ‘friends’. So it’s harder to hear fellow Christians mock and insult than it is to hear it from ‘the world’.