Marriage/Divorce/Annulments

[bobcrawford]

It is amazing that everything Pope Francis says is misinterpreted. I have never seen such a thing before. I guess this country has more difficulty misinterpreting Spanish than Italian since we have such little interaction with Spanish speaking people.

 

[Rau]

It is amazing that everything Pope Francis says is misinterpreted. I have never seen such a thing before. I guess this country has more difficulty misinterpreting Spanish than Italian since we have such little interaction with Spanish speaking people.

Bob, Just paste in the relevant quote and hopefully we can all see the same meaning.

 

[Gorgias]

It is amazing that everything Pope Francis says is misinterpreted.

It really is amazing. One wonders whether it’s intentional, or whether people want to see him say certain things so badly that they see them whether they’re there or not!

I guess this country has more difficulty misinterpreting Spanish than Italian since we have such little interaction with Spanish speaking people.

The question isn’t translation, it’s understanding terminology in the way that the Church uses it.

From the article which you linked:

In sharp contrast to generations of Catholic teachings, Pope Francis reportedly conceded Wednesday that some couples are simply better off divorced.
“It is true…that there are cases when separations are inevitable. Sometimes they can even become morally necessary,” the pontiff said during his weekly audience in Saint Peter’s Square, according to the Detroit Free Press.

Now, let’s see what the Pope really said, as found at the Vatican website:
Pope Francis:

We thank God that although these wounds may lead some to separation, even then many men and women remain true to their conjugal bond, sustained by faith and by love for their children. For those who enter into so-called irregular situations, we must reflect on how best to help and accompany them in their lives.

Hmm – “separation… [that] even then remain true to [the] conjugal bond.” That sure sounds like physical separation without recourse to divorce.

Yes, Bob the media – especially, but not exclusively – has a hard time grasping the meanings of what Francis has to say. When we see that they snip partial quotes – as in this case, picking part of the sentence but leaving the remainder behind – and then spin the quote to say something that the Pope didn’t mean, we see that this is less about understanding him and more about advancing an agenda.

 

[phil19034]

It is amazing that everything Pope Francis says is misinterpreted. I have never seen such a thing before. I guess this country has more difficulty misinterpreting Spanish than Italian since we have such little interaction with Spanish speaking people.

They mis-reported Pope Benedict XVI all the time too.

They also mis-understood Vatican II left and right as well.

 

[bobcrawford]

I remember back in grade school, the nuns told me that if you pay someone to kill another person, even though you did not take their life, that you have still committed the act of murder and sinned.

So if you “separate” and no longer live together, share a bed, etc., you are defacto divorced. Whether or not you have a civil paper, you are in fact committing the act of divorce as you have divorced yourself from your former mate.

These discussions sometimes remind me of the old Bill Clinton statement on what the meaning of is is.

I will still hold that a spouse who cheats over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage from the beginning and never had a valid marriage. A man who beats the heck out of his wife over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage and therefore it was not valid.

Putting people through a litany of steps to jump through to come up with the obvious is just more abuse.

 

[bobcrawford]

They mis-reported Pope Benedict XVI all the time too.

They also mis-understood Vatican II left and right as well.

Maybe, but I certainly don’t recall any of those misunderstanding, especially with Pope Benedict.

 

[Rau]

I remember back in grade school, the nuns told me that if you pay someone to kill another person, even though you did not take their life, that you have still committed the act of murder and sinned.

So if you “separate” and no longer live together, share a bed, etc., you are defacto divorced. Whether or not you have a civil paper, you are in fact committing the act of divorce as you have divorced yourself from your former mate.

These discussions sometimes remind me of the old Bill Clinton statement on what the meaning of is is.

I will still hold that a spouse who cheats over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage from the beginning and never had a valid marriage. A man who beats the heck out of his wife over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage and therefore it was not valid.

Putting people through a litany of steps to jump through to come up with the obvious is just more abuse.

You need to distinguish the separation necessary - as in the circumstances set out in the CCC - from divorce as the means to feel free to marry again.

 

[Gorgias]

I remember back in grade school, the nuns told me that if you pay someone to kill another person, even though you did not take their life, that you have still committed the act of murder and sinned.

That analysis requires that the murder actually happened. Your example of ‘de facto divorce’ is a situation in which the divorce never actually happened. Apples and oranges…

So if you “separate” and no longer live together, share a bed, etc., you are defacto divorced.

Try convincing the government of that – file as ‘divorced’ on your taxes and see what happens, or try a civil remarriage attempt and see if you don’t get in trouble for bigamy.

Whether or not you have a civil paper, you are in fact committing the act of divorce as you have divorced yourself from your former mate.

Not true. You’re separating, not divorcing.

I will still hold that a spouse who cheats over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage from the beginning and never had a valid marriage.

That is a possibility. However, it’s not something that can be asserted without proof… which is what the nullity process accomplishes.

Putting people through a litany of steps to jump through to come up with the obvious is just more abuse.

So, you’re saying that all adulterers are people who never intended (on their wedding day) to keep fidelity in their marriage? How in the world would you be able to substantiate that claim… or are we simply supposed to take your word for it?

 

[Rau]

…I will still hold that a spouse who cheats over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage from the beginning and never had a valid marriage. A man who beats the heck out of his wife over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage and therefore it was not valid.

Putting people through a litany of steps to jump through to come up with the obvious is just more abuse.

Bob - you may be well informed on the facts, but there is not a court in the free world that handles evidence in the way you would wish - that is, by denying the other party visibility of it, and a right to question or challenge.

Now, you have told us the woman fears the man will lie and become “enraged” - giving rise to your objection regrading “hoops to jump through”.

But you have also said that there are 300+ Emails to be tendered in evidence demonstrating repeated serious failure by the man since the early days of the marriage. [Not proof of invalid marriage, but sure pointing that way!]. One wonders what “expert lies” it is feared the man will tell to earn the favour of the court? One wonders what other evidence will likely “enrage” the man any more than his own emails? One wonders why the nullity case is not already started. Is there any reason to think this nullity case will be above average difficulty to determine? In our area, 12 months or so is the typical case duration. Yet the woman, in mid-30s, feels a need to not wait and proceed to another marriage prior to seeking a declaration of nullity, and you find this entirely reasonable. I think your compassion for your relative (given you are presumably well-informed about the details) is clouding a more rational judgement about the demands of a fair judicial process.

 

[Vico]

…never fully committed to the marriage before the marriage took place and therefore the marriage was invalid…

*Invalid consent exists when unity or indissolubility are willfully excluded.

** Canon law (CIC):
*Can. 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.Can. 1101

§1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.Can. 1152 §1. Although it is earnestly recommended that a spouse, moved by Christian charity and concerned for the good of the family, not refuse forgiveness to an adulterous partner and not disrupt conjugal life, nevertheless, if the spouse did not condone the fault of the other expressly or tacitly, the spouse has the right to sever conjugal living unless the spouse consented to the adultery, gave cause for it, or also committed adultery.

Fr. Hardon:

“Now some terminology: the unity of marriage means that a man may have only one wife and a woman only one husband. Unity in marriage means monogamy, the opposite of polygamy. That is unity, just two people and no more. The indissolubility is not the same as unity. This means that this bond of two people cannot be dissolved by any power on earth. We say that there are two kinds of forms of indissolubility: intrinsic- which means that it cannot be dissolved by the married partners and extrinsic- which means that a valid marriage is dissolved by some outside authority, if it can be dissolved by an outside authority.”

therealpresence.org/archives/Marriage/Marriage_008.htm

 

[Horton]

I remember back in grade school, the nuns told me that if you pay someone to kill another person, even though you did not take their life, that you have still committed the act of murder and sinned.

So if you “separate” and no longer live together, share a bed, etc., you are defacto divorced. Whether or not you have a civil paper, you are in fact committing the act of divorce as you have divorced yourself from your former mate.

These discussions sometimes remind me of the old Bill Clinton statement on what the meaning of is is.

I will still hold that a spouse who cheats over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage from the beginning and never had a valid marriage. A man who beats the heck out of his wife over and over and over again was never committed to the marriage and therefore it was not valid.

Putting people through a litany of steps to jump through to come up with the obvious is just more abuse.

Rather than continue this debate why not seek the advise of a canon lawyer? Or maybe you fear the canon lawyer will just tell you what so many have told you on this thread. There is only ONE WAY for this issue to be decided and that is to submit a petition to a tribunal.

 

[pianistclare]

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.

If I may interject:
Nearly every Seminary and nearly every Catholic institution of higher learning teaches that Jesus spoke 3 languages:
Hebrew in the Temple
Aramaic in His environs
Greek in the market place and with others

This is what is accepted. The entire New Testament is written in Greek. Greek was the trade language of the day and spoken, and accepted as common to most people.
When Jesus spoke from the Cross, he spoke in a language that the Jews could understand and take note of the intent of His words. Different words for different audiences.
But to say he didn’t speak this or another, is not commonly held.

Ok. Back to the argument at hand. :coffeeread:

 

[pianistclare]

Rather than continue this debate why not seek the advise of a canon lawyer? Or maybe you fear the canon lawyer will just tell you what so many have told you on this thread. There is only ONE WAY for this issue to be decided and that is to submit a petition to a tribunal.

Exactly.
One fails to realize that annulments are for HEALING.
There are no “jumping through hoops”. There is serious inquiry. If one has nothing to fear, then why the rush to enter into another marriage?
Sounds like someone is afraid of revealing some details to the tribunal. All these things are confidential. They must ask, in fairness to all parties.
Some people have said that filling out the questionnaires is painful, yes. Because no one wants to reveal their intimacies. But it’s a process for healing. What is it that famous person always says “You can’t fix what you don’t own”?
It’s not about placing blame, It’s about moving forward in communion with Christ and His church.
Put aside the anger, help this person put aside the anger and go through the annulment process. It will bring peace to an obviously enraged situation.

 

[bobcrawford]

Rather than continue this debate why not seek the advise of a canon lawyer? Or maybe you fear the canon lawyer will just tell you what so many have told you on this thread. There is only ONE WAY for this issue to be decided and that is to submit a petition to a tribunal.

I was given that suggestion by another. So I called the Archdiocese who said that using a Canon Lawyer (wow, did Jesus really intend for there to be Canon Lawyers in His Church?) would botch things up even more. So OK, back to having her do this on her own and feeling abused.

Everyone here can state what they want. But until you have to go through this with someone you have no idea of the pain and agony. Instead of finding solace, love and comfort from her church, we feels abandoned and abused and forced to go through the painful ordeal of divorce all over again.

You can make the arguments. You can state Canon Law. You can state Church teachings. But that just does not stop the hurt, the abuse, or make it any better.

In a perfect world, everyone would stay married and be happy. It’s not a perfect world and it’s getting worse with the attacks in this country on religious freedom by Obama and the Leftist Progressive Democrats and a corrupt Supreme Court.

When she is ready, she’ll go through the annulment process. Until then, it will be a civil remarriage. She needs comfort, love, support, healthcare, and a proper role model for her children. She does not get that on her own.

 

[pianistclare]

I was given that suggestion by another. So I called the Archdiocese who said that using a Canon Lawyer (wow, did Jesus really intend for there to be Canon Lawyers in His Church?) would botch things up even more. So OK, back to having her do this on her own and feeling abused.

Everyone here can state what they want. But until you have to go through this with someone you have no idea of the pain and agony. Instead of finding solace, love and comfort from her church, we feels abandoned and abused and forced to go through the painful ordeal of divorce all over again.

You can make the arguments. You can state Canon Law. You can state Church teachings. But that just does not stop the hurt, the abuse, or make it any better.

In a perfect world, everyone would stay married and be happy. It’s not a perfect world and it’s getting worse with the attacks in this country on religious freedom by Obama and the Leftist Progressive Democrats and a corrupt Supreme Court.

When she is ready, she’ll go through the annulment process. Until then, it will be a civil remarriage. She needs comfort, love, support, healthcare, and a proper role model for her children. She does not get that on her own.

I highly doubt that the Chancery said anything like that.
The Church is not in the habit of contradicting herself.
Did you call the tribunal?
That would have been the appropriate place to start.

 

[bobcrawford]

Annulments are for healing? Are you kidding me? Annulments for most people are for only one reason. To allow them to get married again in the Church. Healing? Did anyone of you ever speak to a man or woman who had to go through this? I’ve met with at least five divorced Catholics who went through the annulment process. No one said it was “healing.”

What they did say was that it was difficult, opened old wounds, humiliating, degrading, cumbersome, and brought on more abuse from an ex-spouse. Healing was something never mentioned.

In fact the ONLY reason people said they went through the process was they wanted to get married again and avoid the guilt brought on by many of the “fellow” parishioners.

Try talking to women who have gone through divorce. If they still have children in school, ask them if most of the other parishioners stopped being friends and stopped socializing with them? Ask them if they suddenly felt like an outcast in their own Church?

I love how so many judge and abandon and cite Canon Law on divorces and annulments. I witnessed this member of my family go though this.

What is amazing is that once she started dating again, most of the parishioners returned as friends even though she has yet to go through the annulment.

I’ve never seen so many two-faced people in my life.

 

[pianistclare]

Annulments are for healing? Are you kidding me? Annulments for most people are for only one reason. To allow them to get married again in the Church. Healing? Did anyone of you ever speak to a man or woman who had to go through this? I’ve met with at least five divorced Catholics who went through the annulment process. No one said it was “healing.”

What they did say was that it was difficult, opened old wounds, humiliating, degrading, cumbersome, and brought on more abuse from an ex-spouse. Healing was something never mentioned.

In fact the ONLY reason people said they went through the process was they wanted to get married again and avoid the guilt brought on by many of the “fellow” parishioners.

Try talking to women who have gone through divorce. If they still have children in school, ask them if most of the other parishioners stopped being friends and stopped socializing with them? Ask them if they suddenly felt like an outcast in their own Church?

I love how so many judge and abandon and cite Canon Law on divorces and annulments. I witnessed this member of my family go though this.

What is amazing is that once she started dating again, most of the parishioners returned as friends even though she has yet to go through the annulment.

I’ve never seen so many two-faced people in my life.

you clearly don’t understand what the annulment process does. Yes, I work in a parish and walk people through the process during RCIA.
It’s for healing. There are often gaping wounds. People who are not properly instructed or have the process explained to them would, in general find it unbearable.
But it doesn’t have to be. A good advocate will see to their needs.
Hope she finds one.

 

[bobcrawford]

I highly doubt that the Chancery said anything like that.
The Church is not in the habit of contradicting herself.
Did you call the tribunal?
That would have been the appropriate place to start.

I don’t care if you doubt it, it happened. It was the nun who heads up the tribunal office.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t care if you doubt it, it happened. It was the nun who heads up the tribunal office.

Well that’s unfortunate. I can assure you many Chancery offices are helpful.

 

[MaryT777]

I’ve been through the annulment process and know several others that started. One ditched the process because she couldn’t find enough witnesses to the marriage. One left the Church and I finished the process which took two years. The last couple told me they never got an annulment because from what they told me (and yes I know people don’t always quote priests correctly) her and her second husband spoke to a priest after not communing for two years who told them to use their conscience on whether or not to commune.

Obviously not all clergy are on the same page as to the value of the process as it currently stands which does not help.

I did not find the process remotely healing.

I received my initial decision just to find out the decision had to go to yet another second instance court which could possibly disagree with the first court. To me that was truly ridiculous.

Of course the tribunal is not infallible, neither the first or second instance court, nor do they state as such of course so truly they could make a wrong decision which is life altering.

I personally believe there has got to be a better process.

That’s my nice way to put it.

Mary.