Do you think that Infedility is grounds for leaving a marriage?

[InSearchofGrace]

My understanding from Catholic friends is that one merely needs to ask for an annulment. Is this true? This points to one of the recurring themes on this site, that the Church may not change doctrine, in some people’s opinion, but the application of the doctrine allows extremely wide latitude.

A declaration of nullity may be sought, which may or may not be issued by a tribunal (Catholic church court) depending if a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

So if any or more of the above elements were lacking upon marriage, the union may be annulled.

Unlike civil divorce, an annulment does not erase something that was already there, but rather it is a declaration that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day.

References:

Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage
Ten Questions About Annulment

Ecclesial law regarding the Catholic marriage annulment process has not changed, but petitions for annulment in recent years appear to have been better in using basis that were easier to prove or difficult to challenge.
,

 

[Warrior1979]

Man will always try to excuse himself

I was more specific. Did you mean to say chaste Bishops with valid Apostolic Succession are trying to excuse others (since they are not married themselves)?

 

[Sheadad]

I was more specific. Did you mean to say chaste Bishops with valid Apostolic Succession are trying to excuse others (since they are not married themselves)?

Are you speaking of Roman Catholic Bishops? If, not what you’re saying is that other interpretations are valid to non Roman Catholic Bishops. That I would agree. I don’t though get their logic then on other interpretations of the Greek phrase pornea. it strictly applies to illicit sex with bloodlines and other crude sexual acts. Adultery does not apply to this phraseology Christ speaks of. I don’t mean disrespect to any “chaste Bishop” of any faith, but since this is such a heated topic, I think that the notion of excusing oneself from a marriage due to infidelity is often desired more than desiring to live in the framework of God’s will. And I’ll tell you why. Sometimes, people are more interested in making themselves more comfortable then to face the harsh reality (their version) of not being able to remarry. Therefore being excused from that prior marriage and not allowing his grace to work and flow through one’s life becomes the norm outside of the Catholic faith. Who’s to say that God’s plan isn’t for reconciliation after one’s been healed? Who’s to say that one may be called to serve the Lord in a ministry instead of marriage? I could go on, but suffice it to say that trusting in Him is the only viable option.

 

[Warrior1979]

If, not what you’re saying is that other interpretations are valid to non Roman Catholic Bishops. That I would agree. I don’t though get their logic then on other interpretations of the Greek phrase pornea.

I’m certainly no expert on Church matters, but I assume that Apostolic Successor’s, both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic, know more than me. And their opinions differ.

I think that the notion of excusing oneself from a marriage due to infidelity is often desired more than desiring to live in the framework of God’s will.

"Often desired’ is not the same as “always desired,” which is an extremely important distinction. There are, in fact, many that wish to live in the framework of God’s will.

And I’ll tell you why. Sometimes, people are more interested in making themselves more comfortable then to face the harsh reality (their version) of not being able to remarry. Therefore being excused from that prior marriage and not allowing his grace to work and flow through one’s life becomes the norm outside of the Catholic faith. Who’s to say that God’s plan isn’t for reconciliation after one’s been healed? Who’s to say that one may be called to serve the Lord in a ministry instead of marriage? I could go on, but suffice it to say that trusting in Him is the only viable option.

Who knows what God’s plan is? It’s all speculation. And who’s to say that God doesn’t want the person to remarry? Something always mentioned is that no heavenly authority can dissolve a marriage. Never mentioned is that the restriction does not also apply to a Heavenly authority, which of course is can’t.

 

[Warrior1979]

Something always mentioned is that no heavenly authority can dissolve a marriage

I meant to say, in the second to last sentence:

Something always mentioned is that no “earthly” authority can dissolve a marriage

 

[GraceDK]

I’m aware of the Catholic Church’s interpretation on this matter. It should be noted that other Churches, with Apostolic Succession, do not have the same interpretation.

The no-divorce/no-remarriage issue is a tough one, because of its consequences. For me, it is difficult to accept that, say, a valid marriage could occur, the husband can subsequently abuse the wife, cheat, and refuse to have children, and then the innocent spouse has to spend the rest of her life childless and alone. Accepting the Catholic Church’s position means that indeed that the wife will be childless and alone for her entire life, and God will stand by and allow this to happen.

If a person at the time of the marriage has no intention of having children, there is strong grounds for claiming invalidity. The same if the person has clear and immediate intention to cheat.
If a person is abusive he sometimes has mental issues as well, and if these are there before the marriage that means there is an impediment to marriage.
Look, I used to be as sceptical as you… I’d hear the Church teaches something, and I’d be: what… thats CRAZY… after some reading and praying I realised that I hadn’t the faintest idea what the Church actually says and why.

The Church teaches us to discern well whom we marry. So we cannot blame the church if we marry a jerk.
I have studied so much on marriage, like most documents there is, the catechism, 2. vatican councel documents, Bible and Theology of the Body… and look, there isnt a more sound and biblical interpretation than that of the Church.

When you vow yourself to your spouse on the wedding day for better and for worse till death do yo part, God takes that very, very seriously… Do you really see that as a bad thing? Read the Scripture… God has always treated man as an adult who was bound by his own promises etc… You want some emotional God who cares only for feel good, and forgets every promise of ours as soon as we are uncomfortable. … I have to wonder why?

You don’t have to be Catholic. I mean, I’d never be Catholic if I didn’t believe that Jesus actually instituted the Church and guides it in matters such as revelation, faith and morals.
Why are you Catholic if you doubt the motives of the Church?
I am a former protestant… and when I was a Protestant I was the sole Bible interpreter in my own little universe… and I don’t wish that back at all. But being Catholic is more demanding… it takes God more seriously in all aspects of life. Some strands of Protestantism have a fragmented view like they think God cares little about this and that subject… but Catholicism is a way of life, its holistic.
But again… if you dont believe that Christ is the Head of the Church and that He guides it… then why are you Catholic? That seems totally illogical to me.

 

[Rock_Happy]

A declaration of nullity may be sought, which may or may not be issued by a tribunal (Catholic church court) depending if a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union.

A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.

So if any or more of the above elements were lacking upon marriage, the union may be annulled.

Unlike civil divorce, an annulment does not erase something that was already there, but rather it is a declaration that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day.

References:

Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage
Ten Questions About Annulment

Ecclesial law regarding the Catholic marriage annulment process has not changed, but petitions for annulment in recent years appear to have been better in using basis that were easier to prove or difficult to challenge.
,

So, that is the doctrine. Is that also what happens in practice, or can you pretty much have an annulment for the asking?

 

[Elizabeth502]

You can forgive the sin, but the ramifications remain. You can no longer trust your partner. The covenant you made VOWS to, are shattered. There is no more marriage. I have read the New Testament. I have read the law of moses. Many times over throughout my life. Until you have had this happen to you, you really do not know HOW you will react. Religion will be of little help. This cuts right to your soul.

Indeed, it does feel as if “there is no more marriage.” The adulterer has indeed shattered the marriage, and broken vows, and 'cut to the soul." Perhaps surprisingly to you, the Church is aware of this, because she ministers to this – and other ‘broken marriage’ relationships, through the ministry called Retrouvaille. There are apparently many ‘miraculous’ (transforming) outcomes of couples who go through Retrouvaille, which is intended for those marriages which seem to have ‘reached the point of no return,’ so much so that the couple is not on speaking terms and where love seems to have left the relationship long ago. In some cases it’s because of adultery and/or other betrayal, in other cases physical violence, in other cases prolonged verbal abuse Etc.

My concern, benidict, is what you said here:

I am currently finding alot wrong with our Teachings, and I am investigating our moral theology point by point. I am finding them wanting in many areas.

If you have even one serious misgiving on a core moral issue, which causes you to doubt your faith, the teachings of your faith — authoritatively interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium – not Sola Scriptura, then you should be visiting a well-theologically educated, well-informed Catholic priest, to have your questions fully aired and fully answered. (Let alone several misgivings, as you have indicated here on CAF, on numerous threads on many moral topics.) The solution is not to take matters into your own untrained hands, simply using your own intellect and the limited life knowledge which you (and each one of us!) has, to try to figure it all out on your own, and then “decide” what the Catholic Church “should” really teach, or how you privately interpret Scripture to teach.

We are not a Sola Scriptura church. That’s why we are not Protestants. We are also not a private interpretation (of Scripture) Church. We are also not a, 'I’ll accept what I personally consider “rational” in the Church’s teachings, and discard the rest." It is first necessary to find out what is the rationale behind those teachings, and why those teachings are indeed part of the core of being a practicing Catholic. And you will discover best the coherent rationale behind those teachings you find troubling by prayerful and open discussion with a well-trained Catholic priest with whom you can develop, or have developed, a rapport. You could even bring it up in Confession – to inquire about to whom you should go for such answers, outside of the Confessional or this Confessor.

One is not in a sufficient position to reject a core set of ideas until one is fully informed about them, and many of your statements on CAF do not reflect full information. That is my concern.

A reminder:
The moral teachings of the Catholic Church derive from three elements, combined:
(1) Sacred Scripture, authoritatively interpreted
(2) Sacred Tradition (such as the Church Fathers and other writings)
(3) The guidance of the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit)

 

[Rock_Happy]

Indeed, it does feel as if “there is no more marriage.” The adulterer has indeed shattered the marriage, and broken vows, and 'cut to the soul." Perhaps surprisingly to you, the Church is aware of this, because she ministers to this – and other ‘broken marriage’ relationships, through the ministry called Retrouvaille. There are apparently many ‘miraculous’ (transforming) outcomes of couples who go through Retrouvaille, which is intended for those marriages which seem to have ‘reached the point of no return,’ so much so that the couple is not on speaking terms and where love seems to have left the relationship long ago. In some cases it’s because of adultery and/or other betrayal, in other cases physical violence, in other cases prolonged verbal abuse Etc.

My concern, benidict, is what you said here:

If you have even one serious misgiving on a core moral issue, which causes you to doubt your faith, the teachings of your faith — authoritatively interpreted and handed down by the Magisterium – not Sola Scriptura, then you should be visiting a well-theologically educated, well-informed Catholic priest, to have your questions fully aired and fully answered. (Let alone several misgivings, as you have indicated here on CAF, on numerous threads on many moral topics.) The solution is not to take matters into your own untrained hands, simply using your own intellect and the limited life knowledge which you (and each one of us!) has, to try to figure it all out on your own, and then “decide” what the Catholic Church “should” really teach, or how you privately interpret Scripture to teach.

We are not a Sola Scriptura church. That’s why we are not Protestants. We are also not a private interpretation (of Scripture) Church. We are also not a, 'I’ll accept what I personally consider “rational” in the Church’s teachings, and discard the rest." It is first necessary to find out what is the rationale behind those teachings, and why those teachings are indeed part of the core of being a practicing Catholic. And you will discover best the coherent rationale behind those teachings you find troubling by prayerful and open discussion with a well-trained Catholic priest with whom you can develop, or have developed, a rapport. You could even bring it up in Confession – to inquire about to whom you should go for such answers, outside of the Confessional or this Confessor.

One is not in a sufficient position to reject a core set of ideas until one is fully informed about them, and many of your statements on CAF do not reflect full information. That is my concern.

A reminder:
The moral teachings of the Catholic Church derive from three elements, combined:
(1) Sacred Scripture, authoritatively interpreted
(2) Sacred Tradition (such as the Church Fathers and other writings)
(3) The guidance of the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit)

Benidict does have a point though. The Church is slow to modify its doctrine over time. If anything characterizes this time in history, it is that not only does change come quickly, but the rate of change is accelerating. If this forum is any indication, there is a conservative reaction within the Church, to resist progress. It appears to be like the turn of the Republican party away from moderate governance, which has only resulted in more divisiveness in government. When I see the election of an extremely conservative Pope such as Benedict XVI, I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the Church. What is the Church doing internally to adapt to new findings in science and human nature? Will it become more relevant in time, or is groundwork for its obsolescence being laid today?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

So, that is the doctrine. Is that also what happens in practice, or can you pretty much have an annulment for the asking?

Please re-read the post and links provided following the same question you asked in your previous post. It answers your question directly: an annulment may be sought and obtained IF one or more of the elements for a valid marriage is lacking to begin with, elements required for a binding union to take place.

A marriage that had the elements for a binding union remains valid, and cannot be annulled. Petitioners for annulment will have to prove a basis that the union was not valid on the wedding day. Infidelity after or during the marriage of a spouse does not necessarily invalidate a marriage or give rise to an automatic annulment by the Church, as an undiscerning, mistaken self-declared Catholic poster here is insisting.

It would not be surprising that this is the reason that divorced Catholics just leave the Church because they know that the marriage they entered into was valid and may not be annulled. They would rather be divorced outside the Church and have the liberty to re-marry without the blessings of the Church.

If you are genuinely asking if annulments are just for the asking, you have the clear answer. If you are not, and are merely repeating false impressions in this forum about Church laws from unreliable or biased sources, I ask you to stop.
,

 

[Warrior1979]

You don’t have to be Catholic. I mean, I’d never be Catholic if I didn’t believe that Jesus actually instituted the Church and guides it in matters such as revelation, faith and morals.
Why are you Catholic if you doubt the motives of the Church?
I am a former protestant… and when I was a Protestant I was the sole Bible interpreter in my own little universe… and I don’t wish that back at all. But being Catholic is more demanding… it takes God more seriously in all aspects of life. Some strands of Protestantism have a fragmented view like they think God cares little about this and that subject… but Catholicism is a way of life, its holistic.
But again… if you dont believe that Christ is the Head of the Church and that He guides it… then why are you Catholic? That seems totally illogical to me.

One issue I have with this forum in particular is the need for a great many individuals to discuss the poster and not the subject matter. In debates, it is indicative that support is lacking for the one’s position.

 

[benidict]

You are “questioning (your) Catholocism” more than anyone else. You would do well to not present your personal conclusions as those of the Church.

I do not present my personal conclusions as those of the Church. If anything, I believe I have been more than clear, that it is some of their teachings in the area of morality, that I oppose. They are arcaic, bass ackwards, and in need of an update. I think any reasonable person could see this.

 

[benidict]

How convenient–for adulterers. Commit adultery and be free of your marital obligations. Just go to confession after that and marry again. Something is obviously not right with that…

Convenient for adulterers. did you even read my post? What on earth are you talking about?! You totally missed it. Go back and try again. This is NOT a topic I take lightly, haveing been on the receiving end of this kind of betrayal. Who are you?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Benidict does have a point though. The Church is slow to modify its doctrine over time. If anything characterizes this time in history, it is that not only does change come quickly, but the rate of change is accelerating. If this forum is any indication, there is a conservative reaction within the Church, to resist progress. It appears to be like the turn of the Republican party away from moderate governance, which has only resulted in more divisiveness in government. When I see the election of an extremely conservative Pope such as Benedict XVI, I can’t help but wonder what this will mean for the Church. What is the Church doing internally to adapt to new findings in science and human nature? Will it become more relevant in time, or is groundwork for its obsolescence being laid today?

Your stated position, and what you call benidict’s “point,” is not a Catholic position. You have “Christian” in your I.D., so apparently you are a Protestant, and it’s fine that your position is a Protestant viewpoint. (“Keep up with the times;” “don’t resist [secular] progress.”) Except that the Catholic Church, of which benidict is a member and should know this, stands for certain immutable moral truths not subject to so-called secular “progress,” as we are not a relativistic Church which acquires its moral positions from the popular secular culture.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not present my personal conclusions as those of the Church. If anything, I believe I have been more than clear, that it is some of their teachings in the area of morality, that I oppose. They are arcaic, bass ackwards, and in need of an update.*** I think any reasonable person could see this***.

The logical conclusion from what you just wrote, is that those in the Church who support their Church as practicing Catholics, must be unreasonable. (If we were “reasonable” people, you’re saying, we would “see this” 'some of their teachings in the area of morality are archaic and bass ackwards and in need of an update] just as you supposedly do.) Except that we are reasonable, we do (like the Church) use reason combined with faith, to come to the same conclusions that the leaders of the Church come to on the core moral issues which distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism.

 

[benidict]

Your stated position, and what you call benidict’s “point,” is not a Catholic position. You have “Christian” in your I.D., so apparently you are a Protestant, and it’s fine that your position is a Protestant viewpoint. (“Keep up with the times;” “don’t resist [secular] progress.”) Except that the Catholic Church, of which benidict is a member and should know this, stands for certain immutable moral truths not subject to so-called secular “progress,” as we are not a relativistic Church which acquires its moral positions from the popular secular culture.

I think it has been pointed out in other threads, that this is not neccesarily true Elizabeth. There have been changes in moral theology over the centuries. How many years did it take for instance for the Gladiatorial games to stop, once the Church came into power in Rome? Others have pointed out slavery as an issue also. And, Im sure if I look, I can find where it used to be taught by the Vatican, that The Sexual act was So horrid, that the angels hid their faces from the bridal chamber. Big charge, I know. Let me research it, and I will get back to you. The ones who have always praised marital sexuality, have been the Jews. for them it has far more meaning than just procreation. Many of the quotes you read about in modern Catholicism are borrowed from the Rabbinical Sages. At one time in our history, even Marital SEX was seen as a neccessary evil.

 

[salusanimarum17]

I do not present my personal conclusions as those of the Church. If anything, I believe I have been more than clear, that it is some of their teachings in the area of morality, that I oppose. They are arcaic, bass ackwards, and in need of an update. I think any reasonable person could see this.

You present yourself as “Catholic” and object to anyone saying your positions are not in accord with the Catholic faith (ie, “questioning your Catholicism”). That is at least implicitly saying “my position is in conformity with the Catholic Church and you have no right to question my Catholicism.” I’m glad there is now some clarity as to “where you are coming from.”

 

[salusanimarum17]

Convenient for adulterers. did you even read my post? What on earth are you talking about?! You totally missed it. Go back and try again. This is NOT a topic I take lightly, haveing been on the receiving end of this kind of betrayal. Who are you?

Yes, I did read it, several times, and do not need to “try again.” From a perspective you apparently did not consider, I took your position to a logical conclusion. I also do not take this topic lightly. Please tell me how I was wrong in my conclusion.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I think it has been pointed out in other threads, that this is not neccesarily true Elizabeth. There have been changes in moral theology over the centuries.

No. That is your spin regarding the other threads, but no such point was ever proven. It was argued, and argued unsuccessfully until eventually some of these threads were locked, and others pulled for their blatant mischaracterizations and confusions between language changes; elaborations of existing, long-standing theology; development (without change) of existing theology; changes in discipline and practice (such as liturgies, sacraments) — versus essential doctrinal change on core, central moral issues.

 

[benidict]

No. That is your spin regarding the other threads, but no such point was ever proven. It was argued, and argued unsuccessfully until eventually some of these threads were locked, and others pulled for their blatant mischaracterizations and confusions between language changes; elaborations of existing, long-standing theology; development (without change) of existing theology; changes in discipline and practice (such as liturgies, sacraments) — versus essential doctrinal change on core, central moral issues.

I would say they were proven Elizabeth. There have been changes to our moral theology, due to societal pressures, and the norms of the day. We Still have this. Was Ted Kennedy ever excommunicated because of he Pro Choice views? It seems like when it comes to nations, or the rich and powerful, that the rules are either suspended or a loophole is found for such to continue to do what they are doing.