Heartbroken by divorce

[WICatholic]

But I disagree with Restore **that its a disparagable thing to hire a very good lawyer. **When you, against your will, have to put your child’s future into the hands of a court system that you cannot count on to support your values, then you need the best you can hire to knowledgably fight for your interests - your childs - when it comes to creating that document that will rule your life for the next several years.

Hi, Eliza,

I tried to find where Restore said this, but can’t. Would you be willing to find it for me?

She did say that she has been divorced, so she may have had to hire one for her own marriage. I hired the best I found, and he was terrific, including understanding that I did not want to be there, and the underlying reason that we were there. As a result of his work, I was granted sole custody of our three children without a fight. He would not let me ‘enable’ my spouse after HIS attorney had given me sole custody in the divorce papers. He stood his ground with me, and then on the day we were in court, before the hearing, he stood his ground with my spouse. The result was that instead of calling off the hearing and following through on advice from the counselors, on that day, my spouse chose to give up his marriage, his wife, and his children for his … sin. (No one’s business what that was).

Yes, that is His way. We must repent. Then He forgives. If we die refusing to repent we don’t get to heaven.

God forgave long before any of us ever thought about Sin or Repentance, or asking/accepting His forgiveness. It is because of His forgiveness that He sent His only begotten Son to be born, to be scourged, to be crowned with thorns, to fall three times, to be nailed to a Cross, to die, be buried, to Rise again, and then to Ascend into Heaven.

The father of the Prodigal Son forgave long before his son ever thought about returning home and begging forgiveness, even willing to live like one of his Dad’s hired men. Before he ever got the words out, his Dad, who had been watching for him daily, ran to HIM, and hugged and kissed him, and then restored him and threw a party to celebrate!

***Luke 15:
17"When he came to his senses, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired men have food to spare, and here I am starving to death! 18I will set out and go back to my father and say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. 19I am no longer worthy to be called your son; make me like one of your hired men.’ 20So he got up and went to his father.
"But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

21"The son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.[a]’

22"But the father said to his servants, ‘Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. 23Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let’s have a feast and celebrate. 24For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ So they began to celebrate. ***

God bless!

 

[WICatholic]

Yes. I don’t get the idea that WICatholic sees the difference? (He/she will have to tell us).

When people speak around me, and not to me, with a question that they would like responded to, I have a tendency to not respond. It really is not hard to know if I am a he or a she.

However, in another post, you may find the answer to your question.

I am a pre-Vatican II educated cradle Catholic. I am living what I was taught in Catholic schools by good nuns. I am also a post-Vatican II Catholic who has read JPII and BXVI on the topic. I have also read many previous Popes on the subject.

Also… my stand is based on Catholic teaching, not on non-denom Evangelical whatever… I hold Katherine of Aragon, St Thomas More, and St John Fisher in VERY high esteem. Perhaps reading Katherine’s (Catherine’s) letters to her husband/King is something that needs to be read by more Catholics. I hold Elizabeth Leseur in equally high esteem. So did her husband, who did not repent until after her death, Fr Felix Leseur. And he was well thought of by Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

I would be willing to bet that Restore’s thinking is also based on Catholic teaching.

The things going on in the Church today here in the US sound more like Henry’s way of thinking than theirs.

In all sincerity, God bless!

 

[WICatholic]

You imply that everyone who divorces a wayward spouse has failed to forgive, seeks to remarry, etc. That is not always the case. You can forgive someone and choose not to live in the same house with them anymore.

I implied nothing of the sort. I simply gave examples of forgiving with no strings attached. The original statement I was responding to was that forgiveness did not come until after the person asked for it.

I also do not live in the same house, and did not live in the same house prior to our divorce. I also do not condone the behavior of my spouse, and did not then. Part of the reason we ended up IN divorce court was because I did not tolerate the behavior, though I did love the sinner. He chose.

As I said, 12 Step programs taught me a lot (and are VERY Catholic. Fr Ed Dowling (founder of Cana programs) compared it to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. So does Fr. Emmerich Vogt, O.P.

 

[WICatholic]

May I suggest a careful reading of Acts 7.
Pray the Our Father and think about the words.Yes we are to forgive wheather or not they deserve it,repent or whatever.
Forgiveness also frees us.Holding grudges can cause spiritual and physical problems.This dos’nt mean we are to be a door-mat but rather to not let anyone or anything hinder our relationship with our Lord.
To the OP,still praying for you.May our Lord grant you peace and courage.

I had not thought of Acts 7! Thank you!

God bless!

 

[marietta]

WICatholic:

A civil marriage takes place outside of a Catholic environment, with no priest present, only a Justice of the Peace. Years later the union ends in divorce, through the court system. The Catholic Church was not involved in any manner.

Are you telling me the Catholic Church reserves the right to “look into”, analyze, scrutinize, judge this marriage before either ex-spouse can marry again?

Now, that’s chutzpah! The Church does not trust us to learn, to grow, to become more spiritually centered through the pain of a disastrous marriage and traumatizing divorce. We still have to go to the Office and be chastised by the Principal to find out if we’re worthy enough to continue on with our lives (under their watchful eye, of course).

My 12 Steps have taught me to keep it simple. Part of that streamlining process has been to reduce the Church’s presumptuously claimed power over any repercussions which may arise as a result of decisions and choices I make on a daily basis. I’m a decent human being. I don’t believe I’m going to wind up sharing a park bench with Hitler in Hell.

As for the last part of my previous post, suffice it to say that I will not spend one more moment coddling, mollifying, making excuses for, cooking for, cleaning up after, enduring threats from,
giving money to, or satisfying a man. Your posts illustrate at least the Catholic version of the complexity and frustrating nature of partnering up. I’m out of it. I intend to stay out.

marietta

 

[cecilia97]

May I suggest a careful reading of Acts 7.Pray the Our Father and think about the words.Yes we are to forgive wheather or not they deserve it,repent or whatever.Forgiveness also frees us.Holding grudges can cause spiritual and physical problems.This dos’nt mean we are to be a door-mat but rather to not let anyone or anything hinder our relationship with our Lord.To the OP,still praying for you.May our Lord grant you peace and courage.

I think you’re preaching to the choir on this one.

 

[cecilia97]

I implied nothing of the sort. I simply gave examples of forgiving with no strings attached. The original statement I was responding to was that forgiveness did not come until after the person asked for it.

I also do not live in the same house, and did not live in the same house prior to our divorce. I also do not condone the behavior of my spouse, and did not then. Part of the reason we ended up IN divorce court was because I did not tolerate the behavior, though I did love the sinner. He chose.

As I said, 12 Step programs taught me a lot (and are VERY Catholic. Fr Ed Dowling (founder of Cana programs) compared it to the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. So does Fr. Emmerich Vogt, O.P.

Well, it may be a matter of tone coming across incorrectly on the internet. I am just stating that it’s possible to divorce, be granted a decree of nullity even, and still forgive. Just because someone has divorced their spouse and asked the Church to investigate the validity of the marriage does not preclude forgiveness.

One may say “I forgive you, I want nothing more to do with you.”

 

[Eliza10]

Hi, Eliza, I tried to find where Restore said this, but can’t. …

I was referring to this: “Friends around me advised that I must move on, get a powerful lawyer and punish my husband. I believed instead that there must be a better way.” Post 84 in this thread. But you are right, I implied she said it was disparageable, and she didn’t say that. The (name removed by moderator)lication was in the context. I should have said, “She implied…” Sorry.

I’m glad you got a good lawyer. Yes, it can work out well when they are interested in persuing their sin - they would often rather not be encumbered. But sometimes they want the custody because it saves them money. And if your standards in childraising is something like “whatever happens, happens” then having the child doesn’t seem much like an encumberance. Thats a reason for a good lawyer.

…God forgave long before any of us ever thought about Sin or Repentance, or asking/accepting His forgiveness. …

Yes, I assume we agree on the basic teachings of our faith. Yes, God’s forgiveness is always there. But our repentance, and acceptance of the forgiveness is required for salvation, don’t you agree? We can’t say, “I did it my way,” all the way up to our moment of death and still receive salvation, right?

 

[WICatholic]

WICatholic:

A civil marriage takes place outside of a Catholic environment, with no priest present, only a Justice of the Peace. Years later the union ends in divorce, through the court system. The Catholic Church was not involved in any manner.

Are you telling me the Catholic Church reserves the right to “look into”, analyze, scrutinize, judge this marriage before either ex-spouse can marry again?
marietta

You have taken my words and tried to turn them into something ugly. You have taken my right to stand by my wedding vows, which the Holy Father honored and tried to turn it into something that is less than despicable. You have taken my words and turned Katherine of Aragon’s stand into something to be pitied.

You have not heard me. You have read words, but you have not heard.

The Sacrament of Marriage is held so highly in the Church that all marriages are presumed to be Valid until proven to have been Null. That is not chutzpah. The Church recognizes all marriages, except when a Catholic does not follow Form, and marries outside the Church without a dispensation. (It is the very thing that Henry VIII declared himself to be head of the Church of England over before he had Katherine (Catherine) beheaded, starting a new church. He wanted permission to divorce Katherine and marry Anne B. He tried to prove nullity, and when the Church said no, he left. ).

If two Catholics (or one Catholic of the couple) go to a Justice of the Peace and get married outside of the Church, they have not followed the Form required of Catholics to enter a valid marriage, and yes, it does have a simpler way of showing that it was not valid. It does not take much to do so. It is a matter of Defect or Lack of Form.

I know this, because I have a VERY close relative who has been married in exactly this way, my daughter. I pray for them daily.

Non-Catholics who marry in front of a Justice of the Peace or a minister are not subject to the Form required of Catholics by the Church. Two validly (recognized by the Church–an LDS baptism would not be recognized ) baptized Christians entering such a marriage would have that marriage presumed to be valid until proven Null. It would be considered to be Sacramental because they were validly baptized.

A couple where one or both are not baptized are in a Natural marriage, which can become Sacramental if one or both later are Baptized. However, those marriages are also presumed Valid until proven to be Null.

This is because of the value that God has put on Marriage, especially after Jesus raised it to Sacrament.

From the Archdiocese of Denver, referring only to the instance that you asked about (there is much more there besides this section):

***Types of Cases

The Preliminary Questionnaire will provide the Tribunal with the necessary information to determine whether your marriage is going to be a formal case or a “lack of form” case. A formal case pertains to those marriages contracted following the canonical form required by all Catholics (cf. 1983 CIC 1108 & 1117). Non-Catholics are not bound to observe canonical form unless they married a baptized Catholic. However, a dispensation can be obtained by the local ordinary (bishop), which would dispense the parties from observing canonical form. Those marriages which were required to observe the canonical form, but did not for whatever reason, can be declared null by an ecclesiastical tribunal by merit of the historical facts proven by documentary evidence. No formal investigation is needed. All other marriage cases are considered “formal cases” and an investigation regarding the interior dispositions of the parties at the time of marriage contract is commenced. We will now elaborate on the main classifications of nullity cases: documentary cases and formal cases.

· DOCUMENTARY CASES: Ligamen, Defect of Form, Lack of Form

These are declarations of nullity which can result from an investigation of documents without a formal trial.

    Ligamen[6]

The first of these cases is called a Ligamen. This term refers to a bond of a prior valid marriage. Ligamen cases[7] refer to marriages involving one party who had been validly married before, and whose marriage had not been terminated by death before the celebration of a subsequent union, which also failed at a later date. Ligamen cases generally involve a marriage between non-Catholics. If the judges decide that there appears to a strong case for a ligamen, the Petitioner and Advocate will be assisted by the Tribunal in gathering the required materials.

Defect of Form

As stated earlier, there exist invalid marriages involving a defect of canonical form. This ordinarily refers to marriage celebrations in the Catholic Church where the officiating cleric either de facto lacked the faculty to assist or failed to assist actively by not requesting and receiving the consent of the parties or where the required two witnesses were not present. In other words, the required canonical form was only partially observed.

Lack of Form

In the past, it would not have been necessary to even explain this type of documentary case because the laws of the Catholic Church for marriages was well known. However, the level of ignorance of these laws has dramatically grown in the last few decades. Lack of canonical form cases, as stated earlier, refer to marriages of Roman Catholics who, while bound to the canonical form of marriage, attempt marriage before a non-Catholic minister of religion or a civil magistrate or enter into a civilly recognized common law marriage. Canonical form ordinarily refers to the celebration of marriage before a duly authorized Roman Catholic clergyman and two witnesses in a Catholic Church. Lack of canonical form ordinarily invalidates the marriage of Roman Catholics unless a previous dispensation from canonical form has been granted by the proper ecclesiastical authority.

---

 

[WICatholic]

Well, it may be a matter of tone coming across incorrectly on the internet. I am just stating that it’s possible to divorce, be granted a decree of nullity even, and still forgive. Just because someone has divorced their spouse and asked the Church to investigate the validity of the marriage does not preclude forgiveness.

One may say “I forgive you, I want nothing more to do with you.”

I don’t think it is tone, to be honest. There is no place that I said the above could not be done. In fact, there is no place that I even came close to saying anything like that. The statement was that the person had to ASK for forgiveness before they could/would be forgiven.

I have pointed out that this is not true.

Acts 7 deals with the death of St Stephen. Saul of Tarsus was there, watching. The others covered their ears so as not to hear, yelling loudly. None of them asked for forgiveness before they stoned him. Stephen nearly repeated Jesus’ words from the Cross “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”.

The Stoning of Stephen
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

 

[Eliza10]

When people speak around me, and not to me, with a question that they would like responded to, I have a tendency to not respond. It really is not hard to know if I am a he or a she.

Sorry, WICatholic. I didn’t mean to offend. I am sure in real life it is easy to tell that you are a she. But in your posts in this thread I could not tell (unless I mised something), and your login name here doesn’t give a clue, and your profile doesn’t give a clue. I did not speak to you directly because I was responding to dulissima’s post where she responded to something you said.

I am a pre-Vatican II educated cradle Catholic. I am living what I was taught in Catholic schools by good nuns. I am also a post-Vatican II Catholic who has read JPII and BXVI on the topic. I have also read many previous Popes on the subject.

And I embrace all you embrace. But my background is different, I am a convert from the Evangelical faith, where I was a “practising Christian”.

Also… my stand is based on Catholic teaching, not on non-denom Evangelical whatever…

I didn’t think you were non-denom Evangelical. I was speaking of Restores choice for Christian ministry.

I hold Katherine of Aragon, St Thomas More, and St John Fisher in VERY high esteem. Perhaps reading Katherine’s (Catherine’s) letters to her husband/King is something that needs to be read by more Catholics.

I love More and Fisher. I only know Katherine of Aragon from the terrific “Man for all Seasons” and of course I could relate to her. Not that I ever had a daughter in danger of losing the throne! But she is not a Saint, or blessed, right?

I hold Elizabeth Leseur in equally high esteem. So did her husband, who did not repent until after her death, Fr Felix Leseur. And he was well thought of by Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

I love Elisabeth Leseur. But certainly, he did not cheat on or leave his wife. He was just an athesit, and Elisabeth obediantly served her husband and his athesist friends and their active social lifestyle when she would have preferred a retired one. It is not the same as having a husband leave to go be lover/spouse to someone else, and to father another woman’s children.

…I would be willing to bet that Restore’s thinking is also based on Catholic teaching.

Not me. Because she has turned to an Evangelical non-denom group for support and teaching. Because I lived that teaching for so many years, I know there is false teaching in it. Restore needs Catholic, not Protestant doctrine. If she doesn’t have a good priest to consult, she can look for one in a wider circle. Because they are out there.

The things going on in the Church today here in the US sound more like Henry’s way of thinking than theirs.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean to leave it. The Holy Spirit hasn’t left it.

…http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tic/img/stteresa.jpg

 

[WICatholic]

I was referring to this: “Friends around me advised that I must move on, get a powerful lawyer and punish my husband. I believed instead that there must be a better way.” Post 84 in this thread. But you are right, I implied she said it was disparageable, and she didn’t say that. The (name removed by moderator)lication was in the context. I should have said, “She implied…” Sorry.

I don’t think that she even implied that one should not get an attorney if papers are being served. I think she was saying that she was being told to hire a shark and “GET HIM”, make him pay. Get rid of him and find someone else, someone better. This is advice that many give freely.

I’m glad you got a good lawyer.

A good lawyer isn’t a shark lawyer. He is one who is skilled in getting a fair and just settlement. I guarantee you that my spouse thought that he was taken to the cleaners, but he wasn’t. My attorney looked out for us, based on what he knew could/would happen if the behavior continued. Sole custody, already given to me by his attorney, was the best thing for our children, because physical placement in joint custody can be changed. It is not as easy (in fact, is very difficult) with sole custody.

My attorney did not try to get more than a fair and just financial and custody agreement in order to protect me and our children. He was Catholic, and I can honestly say that he lived up to what is prescribed in Canon Law as far as he could in today’s divorce system of dividing everything down the middle, including the children. He even gave my spouse an out just before the Judge came in. He offered a way for joint custody to be an agreed upon change, but only under the condition that he do as the counselors had strongly recommended that very day, and follow through for at least six months before again trying to set another court date.

That is a ‘good’ attorney, not a ‘shark’ attorney (which is a term used here for one that wins huge and often unjust settlements for their clients by many. I have quite a few attorneys in my family, and they all fit the ‘good’ attorney just as mine did).

Yes, I assume we agree on the basic teachings of our faith. Yes, God’s forgiveness is always there. But our repentance, and acceptance of the forgiveness is required for salvation, don’t you agree? We can’t say, “I did it my way,” all the way up to our moment of death and still receive salvation, right?

If the person repents at the moment of death, that person is forgiven. If that person obstinately refuses to repent before death, he is in God’s hands.

It was this thinking that made me so very angry in the beginning. I wanted my spouse struck dead on some days. Fast, so that I would be free and he would be gone…to where I wanted him to end up.

Then I got a good dose of His Mercy. And I saw how very wrong I was. It was at that point that I had no excuses any longer. Whether my spouse deserved it or not, I had to forgive him. Beyond that, I had to ask HIM to forgive me for ways that I had intentionally and unintentionally hurt him in our nearly nineteen years together. With specifics, not generic. His response to me was “never” …something to the effect of it being a cold day in Hell, and other expletives.

I am not responsible for his actions and choices. I am only responsible for mine. I answer to Him for my life, which includes vows that I made before Him and mankind (our priest, family, friends). I must forgive, even if never asked, if I want to be forgiven.

I now plead “Mercy” when I pray for my spouse, because I do not want the father of my children to end up in Hell.

 

[cecilia97]

I don’t think it is tone, to be honest. There is no place that I said the above could not be done. In fact, there is no place that I even came close to saying anything like that. The statement was that the person had to ASK for forgiveness before they could/would be forgiven.

I have pointed out that this is not true.

Acts 7 deals with the death of St Stephen. Saul of Tarsus was there, watching. The others covered their ears so as not to hear, yelling loudly. None of them asked for forgiveness before they stoned him. Stephen nearly repeated Jesus’ words from the Cross “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”.

The Stoning of Stephen
54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

I think this paragraph reads with some implications that any kind of “moving on” is not acceptable:

"This small portion I have taken is related only to those who choose to live their vows no matter what man’s divorce court (and family, friends, and neighbors) have to say about ‘moving on’, ‘get an annulment’, etc as is the usual route today. "

It also seems to imply that “getting an annulment” is a wrong thing to do. The Church DOES grant some annulments, and it has the right to do so through the power of the keys given to Peter.

I think we’re vehemently AGREEING that it’s good and right to forgive even while you’re still being wronged. But as for it being required, even God will not forgive one who has not repented and come to Confession. He will love that person forever, and forgiveness is always just an absolution away, but we cannot presume on it while we still persist in the sin.

I’ve heard this same reasoning about forgiveness from several holy priests and on Catholic Answers Radio. It’s not radical by any stretch.

 

[WICatholic]

Sorry, WICatholic. I didn’t mean to offend. I am sure in real life it is easy to tell that you are a she. But in your posts in this thread I could not tell (unless I mised something), and your login name here doesn’t give a clue, and your profile doesn’t give a clue. I did not speak to you directly because I was responding to dulissima’s post where she responded to something you said.

It was like being in a room, being spoken about as though not there. I understand, but anyone wanting to know more about me just has to look at my profile and signature which does give my blog url.

I didn’t think you were non-denom Evangelical. I was speaking of Restores choice for Christian ministry.

If you can find a Catholic ministry that teaches indissolubility here in the US, I can guarantee you that there will be people who go. I have many friends who are not Catholic that are standing for their marriage, but I also know many Catholics who cannot find that support in parish, Diocese, the US. There IS a group in Italy, under the direction of the Bishop. But that isn’t very helpful in the here and now.

No, but her mother is a Servant of God, and there are people trying to start the process for her. I refer to her for her stand, for her very clear letter to Henry where she tells him she is his wife, and she is the Queen, even though he no longer recognized it.

I love

Elisabeth Leseur. But certainly, he did not cheat on or leave his wife. He was just an athesit, and Elisabeth obediantly served her husband and his athesist friends and their active social lifestyle when she would have preferred a retired one. It is not the same as having a husband leave to go be lover/spouse to someone else, and to father another woman’s children.

He was what many today call abusive in that he mocked her, her beliefs, and at times in front of friends. Adultery isn’t necessarily grounds for Nullity.

Not me. Because she has turned to an Evangelical non-denom group for support and teaching. Because I lived that teaching for so many years, I know there is false teaching in it. Restore needs Catholic, not Protestant doctrine. If she doesn’t have a good priest to consult, she can look for one in a wider circle. Because they are out there.

There are not a lot of priests (Spiritual Directors) who stand with us, either. There are many who advise divorce and ‘annulment’, without ever hearing the other half of the marriage. Fr Jim Lisante said during the Pope’s visit that he no longer sees half of a couple. He will only see them together.

Yes, but that doesn’t mean to leave it. The Holy Spirit hasn’t left it.

Henry VIII left it because he did not get his wishes. Many do for the same reasons today. And some want to see changes made that stem from the same kind of thinking.

Restore, as many of us, simply wants what JPII said we should be given from our priests and fellow Catholics.

But it is also proper to recognize the value of the witness of those spouses who, even when abandoned by their partner, with the strength of faith and of Christian hope have not entered a new union: These spouses too give an authentic witness to fidelity, of which the world today has a great need. For this reason they must be encouraged and helped by the pastors and the faithful of the church.
~~FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO Pope John Paul II 12/15/1981 (Sec 20)

God bless.

[/QUOTE]

 

[WICatholic]

I think this paragraph reads with some implications that any kind of “moving on” is not acceptable:

"This small portion I have taken is related only to those who choose to live their vows no matter what man’s divorce court (and family, friends, and neighbors) have to say about ‘moving on’, ‘get an annulment’, etc as is the usual route today. "

It also seems to imply that “getting an annulment” is a wrong thing to do. The Church DOES grant some annulments, and it has the right to do so through the power of the keys given to Peter.

I think we’re vehemently AGREEING that it’s good and right to forgive even while you’re still being wronged. But as for it being required, even God will not forgive one who has not repented and come to Confession. He will love that person forever, and forgiveness is always just an absolution away, but we cannot presume on it while we still persist in the sin.

I’ve heard this same reasoning about forgiveness from several holy priests and on Catholic Answers Radio. It’s not radical by any stretch.

You are reading into my words something that means quite the opposite of what I am saying. I did not say that.

In fact, what I am saying is that those of us who are choosing to stand for our marriage are asked/told that we are living in a fantasy world, that we need to get on with our lives, that we are rigid, fearful of moving on and entering into a new relationship, that we deserve better, that God intended us to be happy, that He would not want us to be alone for fifty years, that we should 'trust the Holy Spirit" and petition for Nullity even though we don’t want to, need to, have to, desire to, and cannot say that our marriages were null from the get go.

I offer as proof the many threads where anyone mentions living their vows after civil divorce, and watching the statements made to the person. It never changes.

In fact, one person even very angrily stated that someone who wanted to fight to save their marriage WILL accept a Null verdict if that is the decision of the US Tribunals. This isn’t accurate, because either party can open the case and appeal either verdict if they have new evidence.

How do I know that? Because I have a friend who has successfully defended his marriage validity three times, and his wife has never accepted that verdict. She is in the process of beginning another appeal. She has never been told that she MUST accept the fact that her first marriage is Valid.

I have never said that there are not valid grounds for Nullity. I have said that I will go to the Rota for the Court of Second Instance should my spouse ever begin proceedings.

As for forgiveness… “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Jesus Christ, when teaching us to pray.

God forgives. But God will not violate our free will. If we choose to reject Him, we have sealed our own fate, not because He does not forgive us. God knew from Eternity that He would send His Son to be that perfect Lamb that would make our reconciliation possible. He offers not only Love, but forgiveness. If we reject it, and continue to live in our Sin, He will not force us to accept it. But it is there.

 

[marietta]

WICatholic:

Wow! Come on down from your chair, drop the big stick and consider that all I was doing was asking a question.

I do think it’s absolutely absurd that the Church feels a responsibility to investigate failed marriages and grade them on some arbitrary scale. What if the bride and groom were active drug addicts or active alcoholics? Would you say they were able to make a genuine commitment to each other when they had not been sober in many years? I don’t see how the Church’s yardstick of merit could possibly compare such a marriage to one in which both parties were sober, had active spiritual lives, common values, etc., and yet the union deteriorated in spite of their efforts, counseling included.

I don’t have a doubt that God is the last house on the block as far as authority is concerned here. But I cannot fathom how a group of celibate men, no matter what their intentions, can determine the sanctity or scurrility of any given marriage. What would they be basing their judgment on? His story? Her story? Or the truth? And what if no one involved even remembers the truth?

I have heard you. I just don’t agree with you.

marietta

 

[cecilia97]

You are reading into my words something that means quite the opposite of what I am saying. I did not say that.

In fact, what I am saying is that those of us who are choosing to stand for our marriage are asked/told that we are living in a fantasy world, that we need to get on with our lives, that we are rigid, fearful of moving on and entering into a new relationship, that we deserve better, that God intended us to be happy, that He would not want us to be alone for fifty years, that we should 'trust the Holy Spirit" and petition for Nullity even though we don’t want to, need to, have to, desire to, and cannot say that our marriages were null from the get go.

I offer as proof the many threads where anyone mentions living their vows after civil divorce, and watching the statements made to the person. It never changes.

In fact, one person even very angrily stated that someone who wanted to fight to save their marriage WILL accept a Null verdict if that is the decision of the US Tribunals. This isn’t accurate, because either party can open the case and appeal either verdict if they have new evidence.

How do I know that? Because I have a friend who has successfully defended his marriage validity three times, and his wife has never accepted that verdict. She is in the process of beginning another appeal. She has never been told that she MUST accept the fact that her first marriage is Valid.

I have never said that there are not valid grounds for Nullity. I have said that I will go to the Rota for the Court of Second Instance should my spouse ever begin proceedings.

As for forgiveness… “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. Jesus Christ, when teaching us to pray.

God forgives. But God will not violate our free will. If we choose to reject Him, we have sealed our own fate, not because He does not forgive us. God knew from Eternity that He would send His Son to be that perfect Lamb that would make our reconciliation possible. He offers not only Love, but forgiveness. If we reject it, and continue to live in our Sin, He will not force us to accept it. But it is there.

We are both arguing with people who are not even on this thread! I never said anything about fantasy, or God intending us to be happy and not spend 50 years alone. I’m divorced and “annuled” and I seriously HOPE to spend 50 years alone because I have no plans to remarry for sure! So I think you’re projecting a bit.

And yes, I may also be projecting onto you all the threads I’ve read about “people who apply for annulments are adulterers and post-V2 liberals”, which you never said, but I assumed you were implying because we hear it on CAF so often.

As for forgiveness, I think we’re both coming at the same view of it from different directions.

Shake?

 

[cecilia97]

WICatholic:

Wow! Come on down from your chair, drop the big stick and consider that all I was doing was asking a question.

I do think it’s absolutely absurd that the Church feels a responsibility to investigate failed marriages and grade them on some arbitrary scale. What if the bride and groom were active drug addicts or active alcoholics? Would you say they were able to make a genuine commitment to each other when they had not been sober in many years? I don’t see how the Church’s yardstick of merit could possibly compare such a marriage to one in which both parties were sober, had active spiritual lives, common values, etc., and yet the union deteriorated in spite of their efforts, counseling included.

I don’t have a doubt that God is the last house on the block as far as authority is concerned here. But I cannot fathom how a group of celibate men, no matter what their intentions, can determine the sanctity or scurrility of any given marriage. What would they be basing their judgment on? His story? Her story? Or the truth? And what if no one involved even remembers the truth?

I have heard you. I just don’t agree with you.

marietta

Marietta, you’re right that some priests know nothing little about marriage, but they do know the sacrament. But many have extensive education in psychology. One such priest has been a great help to me during the nullity process. Some have even been married. A few ARE married!

The Church doesn’t grade marriages, or compare them to each other. It doesn’t lay blame on who did what wrong.

Drug addiction at the time of the wedding, for example, is a factor that would come out in testimony and could very well have a lot to do with the validity of the marriage. But every marriage is assumed to be valid until proven otherwise.

As for what to base the judgement on, the Tribunal gets the “story” from both former spouses and their witnesses. They weigh a lot of factors in deciding what to believe. A fake testimony will stand out because the questions are extremely probing and anyone who presents themselves as a perfect angel in the process is obviously lying. Nobody’s perfect and the Church knows it well.

Hope that helps some.

 

[marietta]

cecilia97:

Just tell me this one thing:

Why does the Church make it its business to probe into marriage/divorce situations which were never recognized by the Church in the first place? That’s closing the barn door after the cow is gone. I get it when considering a Catholic couple who married in the Church and eventually divorce. But a civil union? How is that anyone’s business in the Catholic Church?

marietta

 

[cecilia97]

cecilia97:

Just tell me this one thing:

Why does the Church make it its business to probe into marriage/divorce situations which were never recognized by the Church in the first place? That’s closing the barn door after the cow is gone. I get it when considering a Catholic couple who married in the Church and eventually divorce. But a civil union? How is that anyone’s business in the Catholic Church?

marietta

In the case of people married when they were not Catholic, iit does not become the Church’s business until one of the former spouses decides to become a Catholic.

But you’re making an incorrect assumption that the Church does not recognize marriages in other Christian groups. It most certainly does! Two Methodists married in the Methodist church are considered married. Two Buddhists married according to their faith are married. An Episcopalian and a Muslim are considered married by whatever rite they agreed on. A civil marriage at the courthouse is considered a natural marriage. If one of the parties was Catholic and was married according to a rite or civil authority outside the Church (without special permission from the Church) then there was a problem with the form of the marriage. That speaks to an issue with the obedience that we as Catholics owe to the laws of the Church. Other religions are not subject to Catholic law, but their own.

It’s sort of like states’ sovereignty. Texas recognizes Louisiana’s right to make laws that apply to the people within it’s borders. But when the Texas drinking age was 21 and the Louisiana age was 18, a Louisianan had to be 21 to drink inside the Texas state lines. Come into the Church, it will look into the validity of your sacraments. Not only marriage, but baptism, confirmation, etc.

And with that, we’ve totally derailed the OPs post! Please keep her in your prayers.