divorce

[taters]

i got a divorce and i received an annulment. however what i don’t understand is that the church won’t accept infidelity as a valid reason for an annulment. however in the gospel Jesus says divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery. someone riddle me ths please. thanks taters

 

[Proeliator]

I Can’t give you a concrete answer to your question but i would assume that when you marry for better or worse they expect you to forgive and try and work things out???

How long did the process of your annulment take and did your ex-spouse have to participate?

 

[paramedicgirl]

i got a divorce and i received an annulment. however what i don’t understand is that the church won’t accept infidelity as a valid reason for an annulment. however in the gospel Jesus says divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery. someone riddle me ths please. thanks taters

What that means is that if you divorce due to adultery, you are still not free to remarry and would be expected to live a celibate/chaste life.

 

[taters]

i understand what the church teaches. and i accept it because i am not a cafeteria catholic. but i don’t agree with that. no one so far has given me a good answer . they just tell me to obey.

 

[taters]

I Can’t give you a concrete answer to your question but i would assume that when you marry for better or worse they expect you to forgive and try and work things out???

How long did the process of your annulment take and did your ex-spouse have to participate?

 

[taters]

you don’t have a clue!!! find out that your wife is cheating on you and then let me here this talk about charity and reconciliation. not your fault just lack of life expierience and by the way a leopard doesn’t change his spots

 

[taters]

I Can’t give you a concrete answer to your question but i would assume that when you marry for better or worse they expect you to forgive and try and work things out???

How long did the process of your annulment take and did your ex-spouse have to participate?

 

[taters]

it took about 7 months and my ex did participate but i would have gotton one even if she did not

 

[brotherhrolf]

I think the key to annulment is that the Church looks first to see if a valid sacramental marriage took place in the beginning. Whether both partners were of sound mind and fully understood what they were undertaking…

The Church, I believe, is looking at the sacrament as it took place when the couple professed their vows, not what happened afterward. Basically, my understanding of annulment is that it is granted after the Church reaches a conclusion that no true marriage took place.

 

[Big_Slick]

i got a divorce and i received an annulment. however what i don’t understand is that the church won’t accept infidelity as a valid reason for an annulment. however in the gospel Jesus says divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery. someone riddle me ths please. thanks taters

Divorce and annulment are two different things. The former, divorce, is a legal ending or termination of an otherwise valid marriage, whereas the latter, annulment, is a voiding or invalidation of a marriage. An annulment, in other words, is basically a declaration that no valid marriage ever existed. Although it may be a breach of the marriage covenant, and therefore grounds for divorce, an act of infidelity does not invalidate a marriage.

 

[leonie]

This is from the Navarre commentary on Matthew 5:32

[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: “unchastity”: The Greek word used here appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were within the forbidden degrees of
consanguinity (Leviticus 18:6-16) or contracted with a Gentile. The phrase “except on the ground of unchastity” does not occur in the parallel passage in Luke 16:18. See also Matthew 19:9 (Mark 10:11-12), and especially 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which shows that the prohibition is unconditional.] **The phrase, “except on the ground of unchastity”, should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of absolute indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. ** It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan people, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law (cf. Leviticus 18) and in rabbinical tradition. The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the True Faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage. herefore, this phrase does not do against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather reaffirms it.

On the basis of Jesus’ teaching and guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church has ruled that in the specially grave case of adultery it is permissible for a married couple to separate, but without the marriage bond being dissolved; therefore, neither party may contract a new marriage.

The indissolubility of marriage was unhesitatingly taught by the Church from the very beginning; she demanded practical and legal recognition of this doctrine, expounded with full authority by Jesus (Matthew 19:3-9; Mark 10:1-12; Luke 16:18) and by the Apostles (1 Corinthians
6:16; 7:10-11; 39; Romans 7:2-3; Ephesians 5:31f). Here, for example, are just a few texts from the Magisterium on this subject:

“Three blessings are ascribed to matrimony …]. The third is the indissolubility of matrimony–indissoluble because it signifies the indivisible union of Christ with the Church. Although a separation from bed may be permitted by reason of marital infidelity, nevertheless it is not permitted to contract another matrimony since the bond of a
marriage lawfully contracted is perpetual” (Council of Florence, “Pro Armeniis”).

Hope this helps.

I’m sorry for your pain.

 

[Big_Slick]

This is from the Navarre commentary on Matthew 5:32

Hope this helps.

I’m sorry for your pain.

Glad you posted that as it goes to show that even though the state, i.e., Caesar, may grant and recognize a divorce, the Church does not. As far as the Church is concerned, you either have a valid marriage, or you don’t.

 

[SMHW]

The information that Leonie posted might not have spelled it out clearly enough. It stated that:

Jesus did NOT say divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery.

The word ‘adultery’ is poor translation. Jesus was referring to the case of ‘marriages’ that should never have been permitted in the first place (and as such, was never valid. This is how the Church treats annulments. It is a ruling that no valid marriage took place (even though it was legal in the civil sense.)

Now, that said, infidelity could be (but doesn’t have to be) an indication that the marriage should be ruled null. If one or both of the partners never had any real intention of remaining faithful then one of the necessary conditions for a valid marriage was lacking.

In any case, the Catholic Church does respect the need for civil divorces in some cases. But the Church considers divorce to be a permanent separation, not a termination of the marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

i got a divorce and i received an annulment. however what i don’t understand is that the church won’t accept infidelity as a valid reason for an annulment. however in the gospel Jesus says divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery. someone riddle me ths please. thanks taters

The word Adultry in the Gospel should be interpreted as “unlawful Marriage”.

 

[Victorious]

i got a divorce and i received an annulment. however what i don’t understand is that the church won’t accept infidelity as a valid reason for an annulment. however in the gospel Jesus says divorce is forbidden except in the case of adultery. someone riddle me ths please. thanks taters

As I understand it, the point of investigation is the start of the marriage, and that’s why adultery is not dispositive. But (being a mere regular lawyer and not a canon lawyer) I would think that even though adultery is not dispositive, it is still a factor to be weighed, since it might be relevant to one spouse’s intent on entering the marriage.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

As I understand it, the point of investigation is the start of the marriage, and that’s why adultery is not dispositive. But (being a mere regular lawyer and not a canon lawyer) I would think that even though adultery is not dispositive, it is still a factor to be weighed, since it might be relevant to one spouse’s intent on entering the marriage.

Your correct. In Annulment cases the actions of a spouse during the Marriage can indicate a disposition that in fact did exist before the Marriage and could have an impact on the validity of the Marriage.

 

[Adamma]

I think it is like this marriage is a sacramental covenant with God and it meant to be a one time event only. Divorce comes from the secular world and mans laws, which are more of contracts and not covenants which are an eternal oath in effect with God. So, this explains why the initial marriage needs to be invalidated(annulled) in order for the person to be able to remarry thereafter or if rejoined without annulment to live as brother and sister because God does not recognize a new secular man made marriage and so to much it is comparitively like another ‘Las Vegas’ concept marriage. Even the secular world takes some of those marriages, less than super serious. (Elvis maybe is the best man, too). That is hopefully understood.