Jesus recommends divorce?

[jmcrae]

This is taken from another thread.

Let’s be clear on what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And in speaking to the Pharisees:

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Looks like sexual immorality is an exception.

“Looks like” but here we have a neo-Protestant interpretation that is nothing at all like what anybody - Protestant or Catholic - ever saw in this passage prior the liberal divorce laws of the late 1960s.

This “sexual immorality” (impurity) being referred to here occurs before the wedding or as a component of the wedding; not afterwards - Jesus is not giving permission for people to divorce and remarry every time their spouse makes a mistake of some kind that could be called sexual immorality. (Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble. That’s why the Christian marriage vows say “In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, for richer, for poorer, till death ye do part.” The marriage vows are completely unconditional; there is no such thing as a “Biblical divorce.”)

But there are weddings that don’t actually result in marriage, due to an impurity in the relationship itself that exists right from the get-go.

For example, if a man were to attempt to marry his sister, this is an impure relationship, and so no actual wedding occurs, even if there is a ceremony; in this case, a divorce is required (because they cannot remain in that relationship), and the parties to this “wedding” are free to marry because no marriage ever took place.

Or, if he were to attempt to marry a divorced person, again, no wedding would take place because that person is not free to marry; it is an impure relationship, and no marriage can take place.

If, however, they marry someone within the right degree of kindred, and both are free to marry, then the marriage is valid and permanent in the sight of God. If something happens where a divorce is required (in canon law, it’s described as “making the common life intolerable”) they would separate and they would get a legal divorce so that neither could harm the other financially, but neither of them would be allowed to remarry until one of them has died, because death is the only thing that can break the marriage bond in a valid marriage.

All of these things were believed by all Christians everywhere right up until the liberalization of the divorce laws in the 1960s. Over time, Protestants have become more and more accepting of divorce and remarriage, to the point where someone who has been divorced and remarried several times can be asked to teach Sunday School, or even serve as an Elder in some denominations. There was a time when that would just not have happened; it would have been absolutely unthinkable to set someone in that situation up as an example to children of the proper conduct of the Christian life.

 

[qui_est_ce]

“Looks like” but here we have a neo-Protestant interpretation that is nothing at all like what anybody - Protestant or Catholic - ever saw in this passage prior the liberal divorce laws of the late 1960s.

This “sexual immorality” (impurity) being referred to here occurs before the wedding or as a component of the wedding; not afterwards - Jesus is not giving permission for people to divorce and remarry every time their spouse makes a mistake of some kind that could be called sexual immorality. (Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble. That’s why the Christian marriage vows say “In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, for richer, for poorer, till death ye do part.” The marriage vows are completely unconditional; there is no such thing as a “Biblical divorce.”)

But there are weddings that don’t actually result in marriage, due to an impurity in the relationship itself that exists right from the get-go.

For example, if a man were to attempt to marry his sister, this is an impure relationship, and so no actual wedding occurs, even if there is a ceremony; in this case, a divorce is required (because they cannot remain in that relationship), and the parties to this “wedding” are free to marry because no marriage ever took place.

I don’t know which translation uses “except for sexual immorality,” my NAB says (unless the marriage is unlawful)
Lev 21:7:

7 " 'They must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands,

Malachi 2 14:16:

It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. [e] So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.

16 “I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel,

The OT would support your position on “impurity” before marriage.

]
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband
11
–and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband–and a husband should not divorce his wife.

So would Paul, Luke, and Mark, their accounts do not included and “exception clauses.”

 

[Hrvoje]

Just to add, the greek word used for “prostitution” is porneia, which in hebrew terms is defined as an unlawful marriage between a Jew and a pagan. Such a marriage wasn’t considered to be the real deal. Sound suspiciously like the catholic teaching on annulment, doesn’t it?

The word those who want to impose the “marriage is not unbreakable” idea seek is moikheia (I believe this is how it is spelled), which means unfaithfulness in marriage. But the word just isn’t there.

Ok.

Pax Christi.

 

[Deacon110]

Just quoting again to make a point.

**Matthew 5:31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

And in speaking to the Pharisees:

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” **

In speaking of divorce Jesus makes HIS feelings clear to us that he doesn’t want us to do it. In matthew we can’t argue that HE does use the word except. So basically He’s saying you can’t get divorced except (fill in the blank) which seems to be the sticking point here. So we can’t just say Jesus says don’t get divorced when clearly he gives us an exception.

Now what is that exception? The word used in the original Greek in this verse is porneia which means unchasity. Douay Rheims uses fornication. ESV and other Protestant Bibles use sexual immorality, some use adultery. The actual definition for porneia taken from the Greek Lexicon is:

illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman;

So it seems both RCC and Protestant Bibles have this right in their choice of words.

So initially it appears that Jesus says you can’t get divorced unless there is porneia (fornication, adultery, homosexuality). This would seem to make sense as I doubt Jesus would want a marriage to continue if any of these words of behavior were contained in the marriage.

So I’ll use my own example for this. When my wife and I, both RCs, divorced 10 years ago there was adultery committed in the marriage. We separated, and decided to divorce. We pursued a legal divorce and it was granted on these terms of adultery.

Now when we went to visit our Priest he asked if there was anyway we could reconcile this. We expressed the issue of trust at this point and the lack of it moving forward. He agreed and said that we needed to have the marriage annuled. We asked for him to explain it to us. He said that our marriage was recorded in the Roman Catholic church and the only way we could re-mary in the RCC church was to have this one stricken from the record as he said and have it declared unlawful or invalid may have been the word. He said you can’t have 2 marriages recorded within the church. So I asked on what grounds could an annulment be granted. His first response was adultery, then he said abuse, then he said if either spouse or both rejected the idea of having children. He mentioned a few more but we got the point. We had to specify to the Nuns on what grounds were we seeking an annulment to which we both answered adultery.

So I asked the Priest why the divorce wasn’t good enough given the divorce was based on the same thing. I also referenced Matthew 19 and communicated my understanding that Biblically we had grounds for a diovorce based on what Jesus said. While he agreed he responded that the state and church were separate and that the RCC needed to conduct their own investigation to make a determination. He further stated that in the eyes of the RCC we would still be married even though we were legally divorced. So we both had Nuns assigned to us, filled out a ton of paperwork and went through some interviews.

The annulment was granted and 9 months later my ex-wife re-married in a RCC in Pennsylvania. I stayed single until 3 years ago today The annulment ended up costing around $1500.00.

Now I had a relative that went through the annulment process and it was granted on the grounds of abuse. But there was child produced by the marriage so the Priest said that was a special annulment that would cost $3000.00.

Now here is the issue I have. How can the RCC grant annulments, even when children are involved, on different grounds than what Jesus commented on in the Bible. What upset me more was the fact that my annulment was granted for the same reason as the divorce which to me is the same thing Jesus states in the Bible. If Jesus says don’t divorce except in matters of adultery than why is this not acceptable to the RCC?

Any feedback is more than welcome.

PEACE

 

[jmcrae]

110;

Actually, a Declaration of Nullity can’t be granted for behaviour after the marriage, if the marriage was valid to start with.

Rather, what most likely happened was the Tribunal determined that the marriage was unlawful (porneia) to begin with, based on the fact that these events occurred after the wedding, not because in and of themselves they caused the marriage to cease to exist, but because they were the natural consequence of something essential not being there at the time of the wedding.

For example, adultery might be a symptom that the person didn’t properly grasp the idea that married people are supposed to be faithful to each other. If they didn’t understand that, then even though they made the vow, they didn’t know what they were promising to do, and thus, were unable to keep the promise.

With the abuse, same thing - the abuser may have been under the impression that he was acquiring a servant, and when she didn’t turn out to be a servant, he got mad and started abusing her. Again, a lack of understanding about what marriage is, and unable to understand or keep the promises involved, thus making the marriage to be unlawful.

The events that occurred after the wedding didn’t cause the marriage to cease to exist: rather, they were the evidence that no marriage had ever existed, to begin with - that the relationship was unlawfully contracted, or porneia.

 

[jmcrae]

PS: By the way, you can’t “buy an annulment” - the money is to pay the lawyers’ fees, but there is no guarantee that they will rule in your favour.

 

[swariffin]

This is taken from another thread.

“Looks like” but here we have a neo-Protestant interpretation that is nothing at all like what anybody - Protestant or Catholic - ever saw in this passage prior the liberal divorce laws of the late 1960s.

This “sexual immorality” (impurity) being referred to here occurs before the wedding or as a component of the wedding; not afterwards - Jesus is not giving permission for people to divorce and remarry every time their spouse makes a mistake of some kind that could be called sexual immorality. (Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble. That’s why the Christian marriage vows say “In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, for richer, for poorer, till death ye do part.” The marriage vows are completely unconditional; there is no such thing as a “Biblical divorce.”)

But there are weddings that don’t actually result in marriage, due to an impurity in the relationship itself that exists right from the get-go.

For example, if a man were to attempt to marry his sister, this is an impure relationship, and so no actual wedding occurs, even if there is a ceremony; in this case, a divorce is required (because they cannot remain in that relationship), and the parties to this “wedding” are free to marry because no marriage ever took place.

Or, if he were to attempt to marry a divorced person, again, no wedding would take place because that person is not free to marry; it is an impure relationship, and no marriage can take place.

If, however, they marry someone within the right degree of kindred, and both are free to marry, then the marriage is valid and permanent in the sight of God. If something happens where a divorce is required (in canon law, it’s described as “making the common life intolerable”) they would separate and they would get a legal divorce so that neither could harm the other financially, but neither of them would be allowed to remarry until one of them has died, because death is the only thing that can break the marriage bond in a valid marriage.

All of these things were believed by all Christians everywhere right up until the liberalization of the divorce laws in the 1960s. Over time, Protestants have become more and more accepting of divorce and remarriage, to the point where someone who has been divorced and remarried several times can be asked to teach Sunday School, or even serve as an Elder in some denominations. There was a time when that would just not have happened; it would have been absolutely unthinkable to set someone in that situation up as an example to children of the proper conduct of the Christian life.

The “sexual immorality” came from the Greek word “Porneia” which means Fornication in English. It is different from the Greek word “Moichatai” which means adultery. You should refer to Mat 19:19 in Greek, which is the original language. Porneia should be defined in connection with Leviticus 18:6-23, I think.

 

[Reuben_J]

…

The annulment was granted and 9 months later my ex-wife re-married in a RCC in Pennsylvania. I stayed single until 3 years ago today The annulment ended up costing around $1500.00.

Now I had a relative that went through the annulment process and it was granted on the grounds of abuse. But there was child produced by the marriage so the Priest said that was a special annulment that would cost $3000.00.

Now here is the issue I have. How can the RCC grant annulments, even when children are involved, on different grounds than what Jesus commented on in the Bible. What upset me more was the fact that my annulment was granted for the same reason as the divorce which to me is the same thing Jesus states in the Bible. If Jesus says don’t divorce except in matters of adultery than why is this not acceptable to the RCC?

Any feedback is more than welcome.

PEACE

My heart is with you. You are lucky you got the annulment after all. In my diocese you might not get it all. There are couples who live in spiritual limbo, not here or there. They cannot recieve the Holy Communion because of the state they are in and they cannot not move on in their lives especially if they meet someone new because they cannot get the annulment.

Then there is the difficulty of getting canon lawyers and it’s also depend on the Bishop’s willingness to go through this matter. Guess this one area that the Catholic Church should look ernestly at.

I don’t have a good suggestion myself except for what’s being done rigtht now - comprehensive pre-nuptial course and then followed with something like marraiage renewal seminar for the married couples. But this does not solve the problem of the older married couples.

We tried marraige renewal seminar which work to bring back some enstranged couples together but after a while they separated finally as the differences were irreconciliable.

 

[Deacon110]

My heart is with you. You are lucky you got the annulment after all. In my diocese you might not get it all. There are couples who live in spiritual limbo, not here or there. They cannot recieve the Holy Communion because of the state they are in and they cannot not move on in their lives especially if they meet someone new because they cannot get the annulment.

Then there is the difficulty of getting canon lawyers and it’s also depend on the Bishop’s willingness to go through this matter. Guess this one area that the Catholic Church should look ernestly at.

I don’t have a good suggestion myself except for what’s being done rigtht now - comprehensive pre-nuptial course and then followed with something like marraiage renewal seminar for the married couples. But this does not solve the problem of the older married couples.

We tried marraige renewal seminar which work to bring back some enstranged couples together but after a while they separated finally as the differences were irreconciliable.

Reuben do you think this is right?? I guess I try to think of how Jesus would respond. Would Jesus want you kept from participating in communion based bad judgement in a marriage? That seems to be counter to an all loving and forgiving GOD.

 

[Deacon110]

The “sexual immorality” came from the Greek word “Porneia” which means Fornication in English. It is different from the Greek word “Moichatai” which means adultery. You should refer to Mat 19:19 in Greek, which is the original language. Porneia should be defined in connection with Leviticus 18:6-23, I think.

Porneia is the original word used in Matthew and it means:

illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

In the douay rheims they use the word fornication. Other Bibles I’ve seen sexual immorality. Still others adultery. It seems porneia has adultery as one of it’s meanings.

This is taken right from the NT Greek Lexicon dictionary. I see your point with regard to Leviticus as it is referenced as the 4th definition. It still doesn’t take away the fact that Jesus said don’t divorce except for Pornneia.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

PS: By the way, you can’t “buy an annulment” - the money is to pay the lawyers’ fees, but there is no guarantee that they will rule in your favour.

I would disagree with you. I can give you 2 examples where money spoke within the RCC on this very issue. We had very wealthy friends who were able to get an annulment within like 6 months. They paid $6000.00. Then still another waited over 2 years. And guess what. Both annulments were based on the same thing.

 

[Deacon110]

110;

Actually, a Declaration of Nullity can’t be granted for behaviour after the marriage, if the marriage was valid to start with.

Rather, what most likely happened was the Tribunal determined that the marriage was unlawful (porneia) to begin with, based on the fact that these events occurred after the wedding, not because in and of themselves they caused the marriage to cease to exist, but because they were the natural consequence of something essential not being there at the time of the wedding.

For example, adultery might be a symptom that the person didn’t properly grasp the idea that married people are supposed to be faithful to each other. If they didn’t understand that, then even though they made the vow, they didn’t know what they were promising to do, and thus, were unable to keep the promise.

With the abuse, same thing - the abuser may have been under the impression that he was acquiring a servant, and when she didn’t turn out to be a servant, he got mad and started abusing her. Again, a lack of understanding about what marriage is, and unable to understand or keep the promises involved, thus making the marriage to be unlawful.

The events that occurred after the wedding didn’t cause the marriage to cease to exist: rather, they were the evidence that no marriage had ever existed, to begin with - that the relationship was unlawfully contracted, or porneia.

And what you are saying makes sense. But that to me is using technicalities to give an annulment. And it still doesn’t take away the fact that Jesus HIMSELF says don’t divorce except for porneia. So if the divorce is based on porneia then why do you need the annulment? This was our question to the Priest. His response was so that it could be stricken from the record and we would be able to re-marry in the RCC. But it would still appear to me that the divorce should suffice based on what Jesus says in Matthew. How is divorce different from annulment then? Jesus never uses the word annulment.

 

[lukewarm]

Who needs divorce when you can just get one of the 70,000 annulments the US Catholics Church will hand out this year? What’s even better than divorce? The Church stating you were never actually married…

 

[FCEGM]

Porneia is the original word used in Matthew and it means:

illicit sexual intercourse
adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mk. 10:11,

In the douay rheims they use the word fornication. Other Bibles I’ve seen sexual immorality. Still others adultery. It seems porneia has adultery as one of it’s meanings.

This is taken right from the NT Greek Lexicon dictionary. I see your point with regard to Leviticus as it is referenced as the 4th definition. It still doesn’t take away the fact that Jesus said don’t divorce except for Pornneia.

PEACE

And the question remains: what did He mean by the word translated as “porneia”?

“[The RSVCE carries a note which reads: ‘unchasity’: The Law of Moses (Deut. 24:1), which was laid down in ancient times, had tolerated divorce due to the hardness of heart of the early Hebrews. But it had not specific clearly the grounds on which divorce might be obtained. The rabbis worked out different sorts of interpretations, depending on which school they belonged to – solutions ranging from very lax to quite rigid. In all cases, only husband could repudiate wife, not vice-versa. A woman’s inferior position was eased somewhat by the device of a written document whereby the husband freed the repudiated woman to marry again if she wished. Against these rabbinical interpretations, Jesus re-established the original indissolubility of marriage as God instituted it (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; cf. Mt. 19:4-6; Eph. 1:31; 1 Cor. 7:10)… . .The Greek word used here [“porneia”] appears to refer to marriages which were not legally marriages, because they were either within the forbidden degrees of consanguinity (Lev. 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 the absolutely 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, but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic Law 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. Therefore, this phrase does not go against the indissolubility of marriage, but rather affirms 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 Navarre Bible: St. Matthew, Four Courts Press, 1988.

 

[LutheranDK]

This is taken from another thread.

“Looks like” but here we have a neo-Protestant interpretation that is nothing at all like what anybody - Protestant or Catholic - ever saw in this passage prior the liberal divorce laws of the late 1960s.

This “sexual immorality” (impurity) being referred to here occurs before the wedding or as a component of the wedding; not afterwards - Jesus is not giving permission for people to divorce and remarry every time their spouse makes a mistake of some kind that could be called sexual immorality. (Otherwise, we’d all be in trouble. That’s why the Christian marriage vows say “In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, for richer, for poorer, till death ye do part.” The marriage vows are completely unconditional; there is no such thing as a “Biblical divorce.”)

But there are weddings that don’t actually result in marriage, due to an impurity in the relationship itself that exists right from the get-go.

For example, if a man were to attempt to marry his sister, this is an impure relationship, and so no actual wedding occurs, even if there is a ceremony; in this case, a divorce is required (because they cannot remain in that relationship), and the parties to this “wedding” are free to marry because no marriage ever took place.

Or, if he were to attempt to marry a divorced person, again, no wedding would take place because that person is not free to marry; it is an impure relationship, and no marriage can take place.

If, however, they marry someone within the right degree of kindred, and both are free to marry, then the marriage is valid and permanent in the sight of God. If something happens where a divorce is required (in canon law, it’s described as “making the common life intolerable”) they would separate and they would get a legal divorce so that neither could harm the other financially, but neither of them would be allowed to remarry until one of them has died, because death is the only thing that can break the marriage bond in a valid marriage.

All of these things were believed by all Christians everywhere right up until the liberalization of the divorce laws in the 1960s. Over time, Protestants have become more and more accepting of divorce and remarriage, to the point where someone who has been divorced and remarried several times can be asked to teach Sunday School, or even serve as an Elder in some denominations. There was a time when that would just not have happened; it would have been absolutely unthinkable to set someone in that situation up as an example to children of the proper conduct of the Christian life.

I was unaware of what you said about the “sexual immorality” reffering to events before the marriage. But this post is one the few I’ve read inhere that I could really give a

It is the sad truth that it is in a number of ways the Roman church that is today reminding Christendom of the Law, and not “just” the Gospel. Those two MUST go together, or we’ll have what Dietrich Bonhöffer called “cheap grace”…

 

[Deacon110]

And the question remains: what did He mean by the word translated as “porneia”?

I’ve read all that before. Maybe I’m just confused. I will say this. I am re-married. There’s not a day that goes by that when I read about divorce in the Bible I cringe. I’m pretty much expecting that when I go to Heaven Jesus will be waiting saying “a’hem can I have a word with you”.

But what I always come back to is my first marriage was a disaster. So maybe I shouldn’t have done it to begin with. Would never deny that. But the fact remains I did and can’t change it. It’s actually because of my 2nd wife that my life has been re-dedicated to Jesus and GOD. Her parents are model Christians if you will and being in that type of atmosphere rejuvenated my spirit. So then I say well that was GOD bringing me back to HIM.

So then that begs the question. While Jesus may not be happy with me getting divorced, would he prefer that I stay in that first disaster of a marriage and be spiritually dead? Or be in my marriage now where my spirit has been renewed and I’ve been blessed with a beautiful daughter who were are raising to know Jesus? It just proves to me that when we do bad things GOD intervenes to bring out the good. It’s taken over 10 years for this to happen but that type of time is an instant for GOD.

PEACE

 

[qui_est_ce]

Who needs divorce when you can just get one of the 70,000 annulments the US Catholics Church will hand out this year? What’s even better than divorce? The Church stating you were never actually married…

That’s just plain unfair. It is a fact that “Cafeteria Catholics” don’t give a hoot, and just go and remarry anyway. Orthodox Catholics like myself seek annulments because we want to be right with the Church. Annulments are not “handed out.” It is a lengthy soul searching process. The ultimate decision is made in the Marriage Tribunal Court of the petitioner’s archdiocese, which is then reviewed by another diocese. In addition, the petitioner must pay the costs of the process.

Therefore, I find it heartening that so many Catholics in good standing make the effort to seek them, and the Church makes the effort to persue them.

 

[qui_est_ce]

And what you are saying makes sense. But that to me is using technicalities to give an annulment. And it still doesn’t take away the fact that Jesus HIMSELF says don’t divorce except for porneia. So if the divorce is based on porneia then why do you need the annulment? This was our question to the Priest. His response was so that it could be stricken from the record and we would be able to re-marry in the RCC. But it would still appear to me that the divorce should suffice based on what Jesus says in Matthew. How is divorce different from annulment then? Jesus never uses the word annulment.

Probably our word divorce is different that in Jesus’ time. Divorce then would have meant an invalid marriage, which is what annulment today determines. Today a divorce is Civil.

 

[lukewarm]

That’s just plain unfair. It is a fact that “Cafeteria Catholics” don’t give a hoot, and just go and remarry anyway.

No unfair is the 6% of people who get thier annulments denied, imagine 90+% of annulments getting approved and you’re the unlucky SOB that has to deal with living alone for the rest of your life or burning in hell and being tortured for eternity? I think they should just let anyone get an annulment if you’re going to hand out 70,000 annulments what’s a few thousand more?

IF you got an annulment you should never join in condemnation of Catholics who remarry after divorce or Protestants who divorce and remarry. It’s the height of legalism and arrogance to do so. Like the pharisees who would condemn people who worked on the sabbath. Then the same pharisees paid or forced slaves to work the sabbath for them, all the while holding onto their legalistic moral superiority.

 

[qui_est_ce]

No unfair is the 6% of people who get thier annulments denied, imagine 90+% of annulments getting approved and you’re the unlucky SOB that has to deal with living alone for the rest of your life or burning in hell and being tortured for eternity? I think they should just let anyone get an annulment if you’re going to hand out 70,000 annulments what’s a few thousand more?

Do you even understand the difference between an annulment and a divorce, a valid or invalid marriage?

The process has nothing to do with luck.

You can do what you like, but I prefer do follow the Teachings of my Church. It is not my job to condemn people. Only God can judge a person’s heart.

As for living alone, there’s a LOT to be said for it. I used to feel sorry for married people. I only recently have witnessed some wonderful marriages. So I guess marriage could be great. But I don’t feel like doing it again. As they say, been there, done that.

IF you got an annulment you should never join in condemnation of Catholics who remarry after divorce or Protestants who divorce and remarry. It’s the height of legalism and arrogance to do so. Like the pharisees who would condemn people who worked on the sabbath. Then the same pharisees paid or forced slaves to work the sabbath for them, all the while holding onto their legalistic moral superiority.

And you shouldn’t judge me.

If you want to be in the club, you have to follow the rules. Why be Catholic if you don’t agree her teachings?