I do see your point. I think the biggest issue that the Church has to come to grips with in adultery situations is the broken trust. I can see where marriages can be more easily repaired with a single instance situation. However, years of adultery can damage a marriage and the inherent trust destroyed beyond repair.
Yes, that’s a possible situation. However, even if the marriage is damaged ‘beyond repair’, it does not mean that the marriage ceases to exist. In other words, if it’s necessary for the spouses to separate, this does not imply that they are entitled to a new marriage. So, if a person separates, and divorces, but does not wish to go through the nullity process, that’s fine – but it doesn’t mean that they can enter into a new marriage (which seems to be the implication you’re presenting, unless I’ve mistaken the direction that your thought is moving in…).
When a priest for whatever reason betrays his parishioners, could that priest ever be trusted again by the parishioners? The Church has discovered that pedophile priests cannot be treated or “repaired” so to speak.
Note that there are fundamental differences between the case of divorce/remarriage and the case of pedophile priests: the Church has discovered that the advice of psychologists that they had received (i.e., that pedophile priests can be given therapy and then returned to active ministry in parishes) was incorrect. Their
pedophilia cannot be ‘repaired’; but it is not the case that their
vocation as priest is damaged. (Their faculties to minister publicly may be removed, if appropriate, but the vocation remains: “once a priest, always a priest.”)
In the case of pedophile priests, they are discharged from being priests.
No: they remain priests; however, their faculties for public ministry may be removed. Big difference… and that’s the reason that it’s not “just like a marriage.”
From a Church perspective, the innocent spouse has to go through yet another “divorce” process this time through the Church. All the emotional hurt is resurrected and has to endure the pain of the process all over again.
You realize, of course, that this is what therapy does, right? It’s a process that asks the person to face the issues that have caused them pain, in order to come to terms with them and overcome them. It ‘resurrects’ the negative aspects of the situation in order to put them to rest. This, then, is one of the effects of the nullity process (when it’s handled correctly); it becomes a cathartic, pastoral experience in which the person is able to begin the process of setting aside the guilt and pain that are associated with the failed attempt at marriage.
In some cases, they are expected to put their lives on hold for another year or two.
No – in all cases, it’s presumed that they haven’t moved into a new relationship before they’ve put the prior marriage to rest.
If they find another partner, they cannot be married in the Church.
Yes… because they’re
already married in the Church.
If it is a stay-at-home mother rearing children, the affected spouse maybe has to find a job for support, pay for healthcare, put children into day care, spend less time with the children, struggle to pay Catholic tuition, etc. It’s a nightmare in most cases.
It is – but that’s due to the fallout of the divorce, not due to the nullity process.
Or, they can try to put their lives together, and just go on with life and a new relationship outside the Church and take up the annulment process later when they can get up the emotional strength again to go through the whole divorce process yet again with the Church.
Wait – you’re suggesting that they’re strong enough to recover from their failed marriage (NB: not ‘ignore’ or ‘avoid dealing with’ or ‘pretend they’ve dealt with’, but actually
recover from the marriage), and move on to a brand new relationship… but they’re not strong enough to discuss/document that previous marriage? C’mon, now… :nope:
Sociopaths … enjoy the pain the inflict on others. In fact, they are happiest when they are inflicting pain on another. So putting the affected spouse through a difficult annulment process actual brings them joy and happiness.
Actually, the nullity process should help the affected spouse recover from their failed marriage. In other words, it should cause the spouse to be immune from further hurt from that situation. So, “putting the affected spouse through the annulment process” prevents a ‘sociopath’ from additional ‘joy and happiness’.
I wonder what Jesus would say to those in both situations if He were around today? Would he tell the woman to go without a loving spouse? Would He tell them to wait a year or two while He investigated? Or would He forgive and allow the people to get on with their lives loving and serving Him?
Well, we know that he said that a man who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. In other words, “getting on with your life” was not a situation that was sinless. For a man (who, in that cultural context, did not need to be re-married in order to survive), he was no less direct: re-marrying, or marrying a divorced woman, made the man an adulterer. I’m not certain you can use the “what would Jesus say?” approach – because we already know what he said…
