Marriage/Divorce/Annulments

[styrgwillidar]

I found the annulment process, including the length of time, to be extremely beneficial and helpful in healing. My wife wanted a divorce after deciding she loved me, but wasn’t ‘in love’ with me. Her decision that she didn’t want to be married anymore, or have a home with her kids, and wanted radical change in her life.

I took a vow before God. I took it knowing as a rational human being that I risked being betrayed. Did I think it was likely? No, but then, no one can see the future.
But that is the chance you take when you take The Vow before God, not just to a spouse.

Will I keep my word to God?

I have faith in Christ, and that he established a Church with the authority to teach on His behalf, as you said- to make decisions which will be upheld in heaven. A Church which teaches that it’s authority does not extend to invalidating a valid marriage. Something I knew and understood when I made my pledge before God.

You phrase this as a two party agreement, that one doing something wrong should invalidate the vow. But it’s not just a legal compact between two people. It’s a three party covenant-- God is involved. Even if your spouse betrays you, even if it gets into that ‘… for worse’ part, you do have an obligation to God to uphold your vow. That isn’t the Church’s call-- that’s the agreement you willingly enter into when you get married. I’m truly sympathetic but-- Sorry, life sucks sometimes. Life on this earth isn’t always fair. Sometimes the going gets rough— again, what did I sign up for, what did I promise, now that it’s really going to cost me something – did I mean it? In the words of Zelazny, “Talk is cheap. Whiskey costs money.”

Petitioning for a declaration of nullity. Upsides (regardless of the answer)

1. The length of the process give you time to heal, to get your head on straight and keep from making what could be fairly major mistakes.

You’re hurt and you’re in pain and your ego is in tatters. It’s very tempting to become involved with someone. (The number of opportunities were amazing, the number of folks trying to fix me up thinking it was a shame for me to be alone.)To rush into something and use another human being as a bandage for your wounds. Second marriages have a higher rate of divorce than first marriages. I think part of it is folks rushing into things and making the same mistakes.

1. The process does provide insight into your marriage, yourself, and the dynamics between you and your spouse. It takes time to get the witness statements and to generate the decision that provides this.

I was really confused in addition to being hurt. We’d been married a long time and more than a declaration of nullity-- I wanted peace of mind and understanding. Reading the witness statements, seeing other folks perspectives, their viewpoints was extremely helpful. Provided knowledge and insights I wouldn’t have otherwise had into both myself and my spouse. Having the tribunal-- objective folks who had a lot of experience in seeing relationships provide their insight via their decision gave me greater understanding.

1. It lets you know where you stand-- at a time when you’re able to act on the decision.
   Assuming you continue to accept the authority of the Church, petitioning soon lets you know where you stand. Before you start getting your hopes up because you drifted into a relationship with somebody nice, but after you’ve had time to adjust to all the changes that come with a divorce. After you’ve learned to live with (and hopefully like yourself), to be a whole person again as opposed to the torn and battered half of a marriage.
2. Not an aspect of the process, but may be something for your relative to think about.

For me, filing the petition was a way of letting go. I still thought of myself as her husband, thinking she shouldn’t be doing this to me, I still nurtured that idea that I had a claim over her, and focus on the wrongs she was doing. Expecting her to feel remorse for the damage to myself and her kids. It wasn’t healthy. Filing was that mental commitment that regardless of the decision as to whether the vow was valid and to be kept, I would have no more claim over her.

 

[bobcrawford]

A lot of responses that are just too long to respond to.

A man has time to wait it out. The woman of child bearing age does not have the same luxury if the desire is to have more children. Medical professionals will tell you it is very dangerous to the woman’s and the baby’s health to have children after 40. So if you are a woman who is in her 30’s, you don’t have a year or two to wait.

Also, second marriages do have a higher failure rate. Mainly because cheating spouses tend to cheat again and repeat the whole divorce process over again.

Reading the responses has clearly demonstrated why so many people leave the Church. They feel abandoned. The Church especially makes it hard on an injured spouse, especially women.

The Bible is very clear. Marriages are valid except in instances of sexual immorality - adultery for example. While God states marriage is a life long commitment, He also understands that some spouses are going to break that bond through adultery, prostitution, etc. and understands that once that bond is broken by a cheating spouse, that the affected spouse can remarry.

We can all debate the Greek words and what was really meant, kind of like Clinton and the meaning of “is.” I believe that Jesus understands we are all sinners and thus will not punish one spouse for the sins of the other spouse.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Also, second marriages do have a higher failure rate. Mainly because cheating spouses tend to cheat again and repeat the whole divorce process over again.

Worked at a restaurant with a friend of mine in high school. One day his sister rushes in because Mom’s new husband, her 4th or 5th, is beating her up. Friend rushes out to beat up and throw his step-dad out of the house.

I always wondered how she managed to find these guys, one after another who were abusive. I wondered how these kinds of guys managed to find her.

Folks who do not take the time to understand themselves tend to make the same mistakes. To rush back in prior to analyzing the situation to figure out what they could have done differently to prevent it. The annulment process is very good, if you read all the testimony, at giving you insight into yourself, your actions, your blindness or naiveté in understanding and dealing with other people. Warning signs you may have missed, aspects of yourself which make you more vulnerable.

 

[nodito]

Medical professionals will tell you it is very dangerous to the woman’s and the baby’s health to have children after 40.

Bob, in all charity, this is ridiculous. Plenty of women have healthy babies after 40. Whatever “medical professionals” are telling you that it’s “very dangerous” to have a baby after 40 are quacks.

 

[Gorgias]

The Bible is very clear. Marriages are valid except in instances of sexual immorality - adultery for example.

No, that’s not what the Bible says. Matthew 5:32 reads:

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (NAB)

“I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (RSV-CE)

Later, Protestant versions have translated it as ‘adultery’, and thus changed the meaning of the word, and warped the interpretation of this verse.

While God states marriage is a life long commitment, He also understands that some spouses are going to break that bond through adultery, prostitution, etc. and understands that once that bond is broken by a cheating spouse, that the affected spouse can remarry.

That’s your personal interpretation of the Bible. That’s not what the Church teaches. If you want to claim an authoritative interpretation of the Bible, it would be better not to use Protestant exegesis.

By the way, with respect to your claim that “once the bond is broken by a cheating spouse, the affected spouse can remarry”, how do you square that with the story of the woman caught in adultery? Jesus didn’t say “go and be divorced” – He said “go and sin no more.” I don’t see how your interpretation stands up, in light of that passage.

 

[bobcrawford]

Bob, in all charity, this is ridiculous. Plenty of women have healthy babies after 40. Whatever “medical professionals” are telling you that it’s “very dangerous” to have a baby after 40 are quacks.

No, they are not “quacks” as you portend. Yes, women do have babies in their 40’s. Read what I wrote and read what medical professionals have written. The older women get, the more dangerous it is to have children and ask ANY doctor. They do not recommend having children after age 40.

 

[bobcrawford]

No, that’s not what the Bible says. Matthew 5:32 reads:

“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (NAB)

“I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (RSV-CE)

Later, Protestant versions have translated it as ‘adultery’, and thus changed the meaning of the word, and warped the interpretation of this verse.

That’s your personal interpretation of the Bible. That’s not what the Church teaches. If you want to claim an authoritative interpretation of the Bible, it would be better not to use Protestant exegesis.

By the way, with respect to your claim that “once the bond is broken by a cheating spouse, the affected spouse can remarry”, how do you square that with the story of the woman caught in adultery? Jesus didn’t say “go and be divorced” – He said “go and sin no more.” I don’t see how your interpretation stands up, in light of that passage.

The Bible does not say that the woman was remarried, or that her husband left her. So it would seem that Jesus is clearly not referring to remarriage after adultery in this specific instance.

Matthew 19:9 New International Version (NIV)

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Very clearly adultery is sexual immorality. Jesus said it, you have to accept it. I trust more in the Words of Jesus Christ than I do the Church’s teaching and twisting in the Word of the Lord.

 

[Gorgias]

The Bible does not say that the woman was remarried, or that her husband left her. So it would seem that Jesus is clearly not referring to remarriage after adultery in this specific instance.

That’s my point. You’re claiming that Jesus endorses remarriage following adultery; but in this case, when there’s clearly the precise situation that you have identified, Jesus doesn’t suggest remarriage or divorce at all; rather, He simply tells her not to continue in her sin. Your best opportunity for demonstrating your point… does not endorse your point at all.

Matthew 19:9 New International Version (NIV)

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Very clearly adultery is sexual immorality. Jesus said it, you have to accept it.

No… Jesus didn’t say it – the folks who put together the NIV did. The NIV is a 1970’s-era translation by Evangelicals and other Protestants – who, by the way, already believed that adultery was sufficient cause for divorce. Therefore, their translation (unsurprisingly) spins the interpretation of the verse in that direction.

I trust more in the Words of Jesus Christ than I do the Church’s teaching and twisting in the Word of the Lord.

And there we have it. What’s really at the root of it is that you perceive that the Church that Jesus founded is wrong and you are right. Got it. :sad_yes:

 

[bobcrawford]

That’s my point. You’re claiming that Jesus endorses remarriage following adultery; but in this case, when there’s clearly the precise situation that you have identified, Jesus doesn’t suggest remarriage or divorce at all; rather, He simply tells her not to continue in her sin. Your best opportunity for demonstrating your point… does not endorse your point at all.

No… Jesus didn’t say it – the folks who put together the NIV did. The NIV is a 1970’s-era translation by Evangelicals and other Protestants – who, by the way, already believed that adultery was sufficient cause for divorce. Therefore, their translation (unsurprisingly) spins the interpretation of the verse in that direction.

And there we have it. What’s really at the root of it is that you perceive that the Church that Jesus founded is wrong and you are right. Got it. :sad_yes:

The Church is governed by mortal men. Men, though well intentioned at times, are wrong. People make mistakes. Even our own current Pope has indicated that there is much corruption in the Church today and is working to clean it up.

You are hung up on the exact wording of the interpretation. The Greek word used in the original text refers to sexual immorality. Jesus is not endorsing remarriage, He just indicates that it there is no adultery if remarriage takes place after a marriage is broken through sexual immorality.

God forbid one of your children, grandchildren or close family membershas to go through something like this. When you go hand-in-hand with a woman with a sociopath lying, cheating, husband who feels that the punishment from the spouse continues through the Church, then we’ll see if your opinions remain the same.

When a woman finds herself with small children to support, Catholic School tuition to be paid, housing, healthcare, loneliness, hurt with no support from her Church, her faith, and her church community, what hurtful things will you say then? Not what Jesus intended at all.

 

[davidv]

The Church is governed by mortal men.{snip}

How do you know this? Scripture declares that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit, not mortal men.

 

[bobcrawford]

Easy, because God gave all people, even those in the Church, a free will. While men in the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit, they still have the free will to turn away from that guidance and make their own choices. Those choices may not always coincide with the Holy Spirit or the will of God.

To put it another way, the faithful always pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But they don’t always follow that guidance.

You may retort that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit, or my family member may not be listening to the Holy Spirit. Maybe so, maybe not. Only God ultimately knows if we are listening to Him or our own will.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Easy, because God gave all people, even those in the Church, a free will. While men in the Church are guided by the Holy Spirit, they still have the free will to turn away from that guidance and make their own choices. Those choices may not always coincide with the Holy Spirit or the will of God.

To put it another way, the faithful always pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But they don’t always follow that guidance.

You may retort that I am not listening to the Holy Spirit, or my family member may not be listening to the Holy Spirit. Maybe so, maybe not. Only God ultimately knows if we are listening to Him or our own will.

Hey, Bob,

If I cheat on my wife tonight how quickly do you think I should be able to get the Church to say that I wasn’t really married to her when I did it?

 

[nodito]

No, they are not “quacks” as you portend. Yes, women do have babies in their 40’s. Read what I wrote and read what medical professionals have written. The older women get, the more dangerous it is to have children and ask ANY doctor. They do not recommend having children after age 40.

Although it is more difficult to become pregnant and maintain a healthy pregnancy in your 40s and any patient over 35 is in fact labeled “high risk,” this is not the same as claiming that it is “very dangerous” to have a baby at a later age. I think if you’re suggesting that doctors universally recommend that women do not have babies in their 40s then the onus of proof is on you to show that this is true; where is the ACOG reccommendation supporting such a claim?

In any event, I think this is tangential to the original post about annulments, so I’ll going to step aside and allow you to continue your debate on adultery and remarriage.

 

[Rau]

The Bible does not say that the woman was remarried, or that her husband left her. So it would seem that Jesus is clearly not referring to remarriage after adultery in this specific instance.

Matthew 19:9 New International Version (NIV)

9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Very clearly adultery is sexual immorality. Jesus said it, you have to accept it. I trust more in the Words of Jesus Christ than I do the Church’s teaching and twisting in the Word of the Lord.

As pointed out above, Jesus referred to marriages which ere themselves improper, not marriages where one party later did wrong.

How can you advocate trust for the words of Jesus but distrust for the Church that brought them to you? The words of Jesus also gave that Church teaching authority.

 

[Gorgias]

The Church is governed by mortal men. Men, though well intentioned at times, are wrong. People make mistakes. Even our own current Pope has indicated that there is much corruption in the Church today and is working to clean it up.

I agree; people make mistakes in matters of personal judgment. Yet, this isn’t a question of a mistakes on administrative matters; this is a question of understanding God’s own Word. Who, then, authoritatively interprets Scripture? After all, this isn’t a question of ‘governance’, as you put it… no, the stakes are much higher: this is a question of doctrinal accuracy!

So… if “people make mistakes”, why should I believe that your interpretation is correct? On what do you base the accuracy of your interpretation? On what authority do you base it?

You are hung up on the exact wording of the interpretation. The Greek word used in the original text refers to sexual immorality.

LOL! Pot… meet kettle.

Bob, you’re just as “hung up” on an interpretation! The only difference between you and me is that our interpretations vary! Yet, you seem to fail to see that you’re assert a correctness of interpretation that, likewise, hinges on the way we approach a single word in Scripture!

Jesus is not endorsing remarriage, He just indicates that it there is no adultery if remarriage takes place after a marriage is broken through sexual immorality.

Again, ‘your personal interpretation’. Why should a person believe your interpretation over the Church’s?

God forbid one of your children, grandchildren or close family membershas to go through something like this.

Don’t make unwarranted assumptions. The only thing you know about me is that our conclusions differ. :sad_yes:

When you go hand-in-hand with a woman with a sociopath lying, cheating, husband who feels that the punishment from the spouse continues through the Church, then we’ll see if your opinions remain the same.

When you presume that your reaction to injustice in marriage is the only reasonable one, you’ll never have the opportunity to see that your opinion may be erroneous.

When a woman finds herself with small children to support, Catholic School tuition to be paid, housing, healthcare, loneliness, hurt with no support from her Church, her faith, and her church community, what hurtful things will you say then?

“Hurtful things”? Puh-leeze. I know the things that I’ve said in such situations… and I know that what I haven’t said is “yeah, the Church is wrong – you go do whatever you wish.”

Your presumptions are amazing. And wrong.

 

[Gorgias]

Check your Greek. One definition of the word is ‘incest’; but that’s not the only definition. The question comes down to which definition fits best in this context. Sexual immorality is a reasonable definition, but it covers a range of situations: fornication, adultery, even ‘selling oneself’ in ways that aren’t sexual (see Num 14:33).

So, the definition can range in a variety of ways. ‘Incest’ would be only one of them.

The word “adultery” is not what Jesus said, although many Bible translations use this word. If Jesus intended to say adultery, he would have used the word moicheia, meaning “adultery,” but instead he used the word porneia, meaning illicit or invalid.

This, I think, is the strongest rebuttal in this case. Of course, if one wishes to interpret the more generic ‘porneia’ as ‘adultery’, one would have to explain not only why the more specific word was not used, but why ‘adultery’ is the strongest candidate for the interpretation of ‘porneia.’ Especially considering that adultery is the topic of the teaching that appears immediately prior to Mt 5:32, one would have to explain why this is not dealt with in that context, but instead, Jesus moves to a new context (and yet still is talking about the prior subject matter). It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[Horton]

I think Bob is the female relative given the way he/she is arguing this issue. He/She doesn’t really want any answer except the one that confirms his/her perception of this matter.

Seems to me this is a discussion going nowhere fast.

 

[Gorgias]

I think Bob is the female relative given the way he/she is arguing this issue.

Well, I don’t know that that’s a fair conclusion. Clearly, though, Bob has been deeply hurt by a personal experience, and that experience has informed his opinions on the matter.

He/She doesn’t really want any answer except the one that confirms his/her perception of this matter.

That might be the case. Nevertheless, it’s not a good reason to stop trying to present the truth to him.

 

[bobcrawford]

Hey, Bob,

If I cheat on my wife tonight how quickly do you think I should be able to get the Church to say that I wasn’t really married to her when I did it?

I don’t know. I am not speaking of a single incidence of cheating. I am speaking of serial cheating that occurred almost since the beginning of marriage.

 

[bobcrawford]

Check your Greek. One definition of the word is ‘incest’; but that’s not the only definition. The question comes down to which definition fits best in this context. Sexual immorality is a reasonable definition, but it covers a range of situations: fornication, adultery, even ‘selling oneself’ in ways that aren’t sexual (see Num 14:33).

So, the definition can range in a variety of ways. ‘Incest’ would be only one of them.

This, I think, is the strongest rebuttal in this case. Of course, if one wishes to interpret the more generic ‘porneia’ as ‘adultery’, one would have to explain not only why the more specific word was not used, but why ‘adultery’ is the strongest candidate for the interpretation of ‘porneia.’ Especially considering that adultery is the topic of the teaching that appears immediately prior to Mt 5:32, one would have to explain why this is not dealt with in that context, but instead, Jesus moves to a new context (and yet still is talking about the prior subject matter). It just doesn’t make sense.

Let’s be accurate. Jesus did not use the Greek language so he would not have used ANY Greek words. Second, the word “porneia” is not translated at all as incest.

Porneia really has two meaning. It can refer to any sex outside of the marriage before the marriage. Second, after the marriage, it can refer to adultery or any immoral sex.

So the question is, which one was Matthew referring to or was he actually referring to both meanings? Also in question is what was the actual word/words that Jesus Christ used when he of course spoke in Aramaic? Did Matthew actually use the correct word? Did he intentionally use a word meant to apply to both pre and post marriage vows? Did Jesus actually mean adultery since He in His infinite wisdom knew that once the trust was broken that it could be impossible to repair and knew that in our flawed human condition, that a woman or a man was not meant to live alone the rest of their lives.

Sometimes I think Clinton must have been in the Catholic faith at one time since he used to like to argue the meaning of words.