Divorce

[Gorgias]

Personally I know of three cases that make people at least “wonder” about church rules.

I’m trying to understand the case you’re attempting to make, with these examples, but I’m not able to do so. Are you trying to convince us that sometimes, people do bad things, and innocent people end up getting hurt? Yes, we know that. Are you trying to convince us that sometimes people try to do the right thing, but circumstances happen that end up in a bad result? Yes, we know that, too. Maybe you’re trying to suggest that these three cases are characteristic of what happens as a result of the application of the Catholic canon law of marriage? No, that can’t be it, either … I’m sure you know far more than three examples of Catholics who married; and, since only three stand out, I think it’s reasonable to assume that a far greater number attempted to follow Catholic form in their pursuit of marriage, and no unjust result occurred.

So, then, what can we conclude from your examples? Perhaps you’re attempting to show that, since sometimes things don’t turn out the way we hoped them to, that there should be some overriding “trump card” in Catholic canon law that says, “if you don’t like the way things went, then we can just throw out the rules and let you do what you want”. That would certainly take care of these three cases. However, would that end up hurting more people or helping more? Would that make the situation of Catholic marriage more orderly, or more chaotic? I think it would end up hurting the institution of Catholic marriage, since it would effectively say, “do whatever you want”.

So, I’m not quite sure of the point that your stories illustrate.

But, as far as the stories themselves go…

Case 1: A single, loyal, unmarried Catholic woman from the 1950 era, wanted to marry a Protestant divorced man who had been married to an unbaptised person. This man received a legal anulment due to Pauline/Petrine priviledge. Woman proceeded to get married in the Catholic church with legal anulment in hand and could find no Catholic churches in the city to marry her. She ended up marrying in another church, and fell away from the Catholic church.

Interesting (but sad) story. Do we know why it is that “no Catholic church in the city” would marry her? Was this happening in “the 1950 era”? Your story seems to suggest that all the pastors in the city were unreasonably denying this couple a Catholic wedding. Is it not reasonable to allow for the possibility that a Catholic marriage wasn’t possible for some other reason (maybe they couldn’t validly give consent (e.g., the man didn’t agree with the notion of Catholic marriage?), or maybe there was some other impediment present that prevented the marriage)? Too little detail here to conclude that there was something nefarious going on here…

Case 2: an unmarried, fallen away Catholic woman attempted to marry an unmarried Catholic man in a Catholic ceremony by a Catholic priest. Priest performed the ceremony. That week, that same priest left the priesthood and failed to file these people’s marriage, unknown to this couple. About a year later, the man beat the woman, and the woman was going to file a petition for nullity, when she discovered there was no marriage record. No marriage record, therefore, no legal marriage. Huh? Yep, that’s right. No marriage record, therefore, no legal marriage. The priest left the priesthood and did not file the marriage.

This is a confusing one. On one hand, we have a situation where an abused woman is the set up for an example of how the Church marginalizes its own and kicks them when they’re down. Yet, that’s not the story – here, the woman is able to move on with her life, unencumbered.

Maybe the point is that the Church is unreasonable in the fact that it follows its own rules? Well, let’s be honest – if the priest had followed the letter of the law, we still have the fact that the husband beat his wife within a year of their marriage; I don’t think it would be too difficult to demonstrate that, at the time of the wedding, he clearly didn’t have in mind a marriage in the way that we as Catholics understand it. An annulment would not likely have been difficult to get. All that happened here is that a canon lawyer leaned on a technicality in order to more easily get the outcome that would have been able to be achieved anyway.

Even if that’s the case, we have the question of why this might have happened in the first place. If the priest (who was already on the cusp of abandoning his vocation) didn’t bother to file the paperwork, how likely was it that he performed due diligence in the marriage prep? What’s to say that, if he had done things properly, he wouldn’t have found a reason to put a halt to the wedding before it took place?

Case 3: A widowed Catholic man allowed to marry a previously vowed nun in the Catholic church. Nun was relieved of her vows, and he was allowed to marry.

Not sure what this proves. A widower is free to marry. Are you certain that this woman took her perpetual vows? Maybe she had only taken her temporary vows, and not perpetual, in which case she was free to disassociate with her order? In any case, a professed religious who has taken perpetual vows has the opportunity to petition to be released from these vows. Having (presumably) done so, she too was free to marry. What’s your point – that there are procedures that, when followed correctly, work to the benefit of all?

Case 4: Other “Catholic” rites which do not have such a strict viewpoint on divorce and remarriage.

I’m not sure what you mean here. What “Catholic rites” are you talking about?

In any case, I’m not certain that these examples even really show that we should “wonder about Church rules”.

 

[oneofmany]

Well I can see how it can get confusing.

Would I have married my husband if he could not get an annulment? Probably. I had aunts that never married and one that lived with a man because of the church laws. The church use to look down on marriage to a non-catholic. My sister married a non-catholic and they could not go up on the alter so they were married at the foot of the alter. That was 50 years ago. My niece married a non-Catholic but they were allowed on the alter. Now mixed marriages have both priest and minister marry the couple.

I also think when one person breaks their vows by committing adultery, is physically or emotionally abusive or becomes addicted to drugs then the marriage should be over. Especially for the first 2. I feel that person has abandoned their marriage even if they seemed to take their vows seriously when they made them.

Would Jesus want people to be stuck for the rest of their lives because their spouse broke their promises? The one spouse did nothing wrong and many try as hard as they can to save a drowning marriage but to no avail. Seems to me the innocent party is punished for the rest of their lives for the failings of a sinful spouse.

 

[Luvtosew]

Well I can see how it can get confusing.

Would I have married my husband if he could not get an annulment? Probably. I had aunts that never married and one that lived with a man because of the church laws. The church use to look down on marriage to a non-catholic. My sister married a non-catholic and they could not go up on the alter so they were married at the foot of the alter. That was 50 years ago. My niece married a non-Catholic but they were allowed on the alter. Now mixed marriages have both priest and minister marry the couple.

I also think when one person breaks their vows by committing adultery, is physically or emotionally abusive or becomes addicted to drugs then the marriage should be over. Especially for the first 2. I feel that person has abandoned their marriage even if they seemed to take their vows seriously when they made them.

Would Jesus want people to be stuck for the rest of their lives because their spouse broke their promises? The one spouse did nothing wrong and many try as hard as they can to save a drowning marriage but to no avail. Seems to me the innocent party is punished for the rest of their lives for the failings of a sinful spouse.

Weren’t divorced people not allowed to receive the Eucharist even if they didn’t remarry , back in the earlier part of the century (20th) I could be mistaken but seem I remember that.

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

Well I can see how it can get confusing.

Would I have married my husband if he could not get an annulment? Probably.

Let’s look at this in another way. What would you say to your daughter if she said, “Would I have had an affair with a married man? Probably. I loved him. What else could I do? Be alone for the rest of my life?”

I had aunts that never married and one that lived with a man because of the church laws. The church use to look down on marriage to a non-catholic. My sister married a non-catholic and they could not go up on the alter so they were married at the foot of the alter. That was 50 years ago. My niece married a non-Catholic but they were allowed on the alter. Now mixed marriages have both priest and minister marry the couple.

I think you’re under the misapprehension that the Church doesn’t disapprove of mixed marriages. It does. Otherwise, why would a dispensation be required? Now, it’s true that the application of this has changed over the years–that is, the discipline has evolved to match the culture, but that is not to say that the Church has changed her position on mixed marriages.

 

[PRmerger]

Weren’t divorced people not allowed to receive the Eucharist even if they didn’t remarry , back in the earlier part of the century (20th) I could be mistaken but seem I remember that.

You are mistaken, Luv.

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

It is still not good to marry a non-Catholic.

 

[ricofall]

It is still not good to marry a non-Catholic.

I would not have put it that way, but the point is valid none the less. If marrying a non-Catholic, the Catholic member should understand the possible problems arising form that. I, for one, would not have married my wife if she did not convert before we were married. She however converted and tried to hide it from me and her family at first. She said she felt ‘at home’ when going to my church.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Stories like this are why it’s so easy for me to put the “risks” of getting hurt through marriage behind me. If I can keep half as much focus on God’s love as you have in this post, even a broken marriage will not keep me from feeling God’s love.

Well, even Jesus felt abandoned by God on the cross even though He knew He wasn’t. So, yeah, it’s entirely possible at some point you will not feel God’s love, but you will know it is there- but not be able to see how it is working in your current situation.

In an earlier post you referred to being sad and lonely in the event a marriage breaks up and you can’t get an annulment. It’s entirely possible to be lonely in that way and not be sad. Attitude is everything.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes, Father I do realize that, I just hope all who apply for an annulment get one, as they have a big decision to make if not.

Well, let us hope for the best case scenario for each person, whatever that may be.

Some will leave the Church due to anger or not being able to fully participate in the Church they belong to, if they choose to begin dating and remarry.

Absolutely, that is understandable. But I would hope they would first sit down and talk with a priest they trust before leaving the Church.

I also feel that cheating spouses and physical abusers probably don’t care either way if they are able to receive the Eucharists, which makes it bad for their spouses who do care.

Absolutely. In a perfect world a person’s sins would only effect him/her-self. But we live in a fallen and broken world where sin touches the innocent and the guilty alike. That’s why we need a savior…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think you’re under the misapprehension that the Church doesn’t disapprove of mixed marriages. It does. Otherwise, why would a dispensation be required? Now, it’s true that the application of this has changed over the years–that is, the discipline has evolved to match the culture, but that is not to say that the Church has changed her position on mixed marriages.

Sorry, you are under a misapprehension of the Church’s laws on mixed marriages. A mixed marriage does not require a dispensation, it requires permission (canon 1124) The difference between a dispensation and permission is huge:

1. While dispensations are canonically viewed as a negative term meaning that the law wishes discourage them, permissions are viewed positively. Permission means that something is normally good but has certain inherent risks that need to be managed.
2. If a priest fails to obtain a dispensation the marriage would be invalid. If a priest fails to obtain permission the marriage ceremony is illicit but valid/

You are also incorrect in that the Church has changer her position on mixed marriages. In the 1917 code mixed marriage was listed as an impediment and required a dispensation and were discouraged, in the 1983 Code it is not an impediment, it does not require dispensation and is not discouraged but rather is managed.

Please do not claim others are misunderstanding Church teaching when you do not fully grasp it either…

 

[agapewolf]

But if you read all the documents on mixed marriage, you will find them not favorable.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Weren’t divorced people not allowed to receive the Eucharist even if they didn’t remarry , back in the earlier part of the century (20th) I could be mistaken but seem I remember that.

IIRC, that was merely a law/rule put in place by US Bishops and was not part of the universal canon law of the Church. But I can’t remember the details. I remember something about the USA had its own rather strict divorce/communion rules that many people thought was universal church law but was not.

I do remember also when it was not good to marry a non Catholic.

You are correct, the Church takes a much more positive view of Catholics marrying Protestants than it did at the turn of the last century.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

But if you read all the documents on mixed marriage, you will find them not favorable.

Like what? And remember, they must be post 1983 to be of use to this discussion…

 

[Fogwalker]

This is in the Catechism, and I’m paraphrasing because I don’t have the specific quote in front of me, but the “issue” with a Catholic-Protestant marriage is that it brings the biggest divisions between all Christians, which are inherently painful and negative, right into an individual family’s home. The Church doesn’t think that it’s an insurmountable problem, but is obviously not going to actively encourage her members to enter into marriages with inherent difficulties.

 

[agapewolf]

Like what? And remember, they must be post 1983 to be of use to this discussion…

That is an arbitrary date. So, because humanae vitae is before 1983 it isn’t useful?

That doesn’t make sense.

From MATRIMONIA MIXTA Oct 1, 1970

For these reasons the Church, conscious of her duty, discourages the contracting of mixed marriages, for she is the most desirous that Catholics be able in matrimony to attain to perfect union of mind and full communion of life.

 

[Luvtosew]

IIRC, that was merely a law/rule put in place by US Bishops and was not part of the universal canon law of the Church. But I can’t remember the details. I remember something about the USA had its own rather strict divorce/communion rules that many people thought was universal church law but was not.

You are correct, the Church takes a much more positive view of Catholics marrying Protestants than it did at the turn of the last century.

Thank you for clearing that up, must be why so many adults back then thought it was so…

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That is an arbitrary date. So, because humanae vitae is before 1983 it isn’t useful?

Its not arbitrary, its when the current code of canon law was promulgated.

Secondly, Matrimonia Mixta is referencing the 1917 Code of Canon Law which is no longer in effect.

In the 1917 Code mixed marriage was listed as an impediment to valid marriage, required a dispensation and was discouraged.
In the 1983 Code mixed marriage is not an impediment, it does not require dispensation and is managed rather than discouraged. .

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, you are under a misapprehension of the Church’s laws on mixed marriages. A mixed marriage does not require a dispensation, it requires permission (canon 1124) The difference between a dispensation and permission is huge:

1. While dispensations are canonically viewed as a negative term meaning that the law wishes discourage them, permissions are viewed positively. Permission means that something is normally good but has certain inherent risks that need to be managed.
2. If a priest fails to obtain a dispensation the marriage would be invalid. If a priest fails to obtain permission the marriage ceremony is illicit but valid/

You are also incorrect in that the Church has changer her position on mixed marriages. In the 1917 code mixed marriage was listed as an impediment and required a dispensation and were discouraged, in the 1983 Code it is not an impediment, it does not require dispensation and is not discouraged but rather is managed.

Please do not claim others are misunderstanding Church teaching when you do not fully grasp it either…

NewEnglandPries, are you a Latin rite Catholic priest?

 

[PRmerger]

But if you read all the documents on mixed marriage, you will find them not favorable.

Exactly.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

NewEnglandPries, are you a Latin rite Catholic priest?

Yes.

Originally Posted by agapewolf

But if you read all the documents on mixed marriage, you will find them not favorable.

Exactly.

OK then, please provide the post 1983 documents that are “not favorable” to the degree that you are claiming.

All you will find are the simple “cautions” and simple requirements for the permission for Mixed Marriage, and that permission isn’t even needed for validity.

I really do find it amazing that posters can make blatantly false statements (i.e. mixed marriages need a dispensation) and then try to downplay the actual facts of the matter.

Are you and agapewolf really going to high five each other over false and misleading information?

 

[agapewolf]

Yes.

OK then, please provide the post 1983 documents that are “not favorable” to the degree that you are claiming.

All you will find are the simple “cautions” and simple requirements for the permission for Mixed Marriage, and that permission isn’t even needed for validity.

I really do find it amazing that posters can make blatantly false statements (i.e. mixed marriages need a dispensation) and then try to downplay the actual facts of the matter.

Are you and agapewolf really going to high five each other over false and misleading information?

Your snarkiness is not necessary. I have not “high fived” anyone.

A church document such as this stands firmer than a canon law, which changes. the fact that there is “Cautions” by definition means its not favorable. The very paragraph I quoted is not based on canon law, and is very true. Mixed marriages do not have the full communion life.