Marriage and Mental illness

[OutinChgoburbs]

You already asked Father Serpa, and he gave you an answer. How could any of us top his?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=144431

 

[LSK]

Annulments are not biblical. Divorce is.

Mal 2:14-16 - for I hate divorce, says the Lord
Mt 5:32-33 - to divorce or marry divorced wife is adultery
Mt 19:4-6,9 - to divorce wife and remarry is adultery
Mk 10:11-12 - if either divorces and remarries = adultery
Lk 16:18 - to divorce & remarry or marry divorced person = adultery
Rom 7:2-3 - adulteress
1 Cor 7:10-11 if wife separates, stay single or reconcile

I am so glad that we have the Holy Mother Church to help us understand that a decree of nullity means there has never BEEN a marriage, that divorce may be necessary to protect the children and or assets AND to guide us in our behavior if we find ourselves in difficult situations. I cannot imagine trying to live my life without guidance…oh wait, yes I can…I did do that for many years…that’s why I am BACK!

 

[BLB_Oregon]

no, not unless it was determined the mental illness existed at the time of the marriage and also that it was of a nature to render consent impossible, or if it was proven that the afflicted person or others knew about the condition but kept it hidden. (Mr. Rochester’s marriage in Jane Eyre would have probably been judged invalid by a Catholic tribunal because the wife’s illness was known by her family yet concealed from him, at least if being judged by a modern tribunal).

This is a very good answer. If you are found after having made your vows, in spite of your best intentions, to have been for any reason truly incapable of fulfilling the marital obligations to which you promised yourself, there can be no marriage.

Annulments are not biblical. Divorce is.

I think that in the New Testament, there is no mental illness clause…and Jesus had something to say about the divorces allowed under Mosaic law, too.

Funny how many fundamentalists advised me to stay in my abusive marriage, saying divorce was only acceptable in cases of adultery. I’m just glad that Christ gave us a Church to guide us.

It should not be forgotten that the prohibition on divorce does not imply a requirement to live with abuse. There is a prohibition on separating lightly and there is a prohibition on re-marriage while the first spouse lives.

While the covenantal relationship to the person remains, it is not required that a person endure abuse at the hand of a spouse, whether they are mentally ill or not.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

no, not unless it was determined the mental illness existed at the time of the marriage and also that it was of a nature to render consent impossible, or if it was proven that the afflicted person or others knew about the condition but kept it hidden. (Mr. Rochester’s marriage in Jane Eyre would have probably been judged invalid by a Catholic tribunal because the wife’s illness was known by her family yet concealed from him, at least if being judged by a modern tribunal).

This is a very good answer. If you are found after having made your vows, in spite of your best intentions, to have been for any reason truly incapable of fulfilling the marital obligations to which you promised yourself, there can be no marriage.

Annulments are not biblical. Divorce is.

I think that in the New Testament, there is no mental illness clause…and Jesus had something to say about the divorces allowed under Mosaic law, too.

Funny how many fundamentalists advised me to stay in my abusive marriage, saying divorce was only acceptable in cases of adultery. I’m just glad that Christ gave us a Church to guide us.

It should not be forgotten that the prohibition on divorce does not imply a requirement to live with abuse. There is a prohibition on separating lightly and there is a prohibition on re-marriage while the first spouse lives.

While the covenantal relationship to the person remains, it is not required that a person endure abuse at the hand of a spouse, whether they are mentally ill or not.