No-Fault Divorce, Standing for Justice

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jesus says in the Bible in clear words “anyone who divorces his wife except for adultery…” I understand that the Catholic Church does not believe adultery is grounds for annulment but I have never seen anyone to be able to explain satisfactorily what Jesus meant by his words “except for adultery"
Porneia is distinguished from adultery by Matthew. He used that term for a reason. And he used porneia and moicheía together in chapter 15. He clearly means an illicit union, whether an act or contracted in marriage unlawfully.
Even St Joseph was planning to divorce Mary (quietly) when he presumed that her pregnant by another man.
This was prior to consummation, allowed by God in Deuteronomy 22. A Sacrament that is not consummated can still be dissolved in the Church to this day.
Consider the shoe on other foot - hopefully this situation is rare (!) but would many men stay with a wife if they found out that she was prostituting herself secretly?
Stay with? You can separate, with the bond remaining. Otherwise, if the marriage never existed, it would never have been adultery, but porneia.
 
Last edited:
a person has no knowledge whatsoever of “the birds and bees”, then he/she is ignorant as c. 1096 describes the term. So, their examples may be unusual
Thanks but it’s quite bizarre tbh. If they take it to be that concrete/rigid, where it’s situations that wouldn’t even happen in reality, then there’s probably no necessity to have those clauses in first place.

It’s just like stating the obvious. With this sort of reasoning they might as well put other examples that are never going happen like “if you marry a duck” the marriage is invalid 😀.
should be unusual for marriages to be invalid due to a defect in consent.
Wouldn’t defect in consent make a marriage invalid?
, when I was, I would regularly have different views than other judges on the same case. This i
What happens when judges have opposing views? Who gets to ultimately decide the state of the marriage in this situation?
 
Can you please explain what you mean by illicit union?
Forbidden sex and/or a marriage contracted by two people unlawfully.

Examples: Sex before marriage, same sex act and unions, unions between forbidden degrees of kinship, marriage when one or both spouse is already married/divorced, concubinage (may have been the direct reason Matthew specified for those who had concubines, biblical example would be Abraham’s concubine Hagar, who was put away, and then he married her anew when it was lawful, and so her name was changed.), marriage to unBaptized unBaptized.

Those are porneia and are not binding. The last one and concubinage, not strictly prohibited, but cannot be a Sacrament.
 
Last edited:
(Generally speaking) I think that all the supposed meanings of the word porneia are just presumptions.
Sometimes it’s used like the other word to mean adultery, and sometimes it’s used to mean “sexual immorality” of some kind, but ultimately I think we are just guessing at what it actually literally involves.
It doesn’t make sense that Jesus would say to followers if wife (husband) sleeps with your best friend it’s not grounds for divorce, but if sleeps with her own brother it is.

Either way it affects the spouse the same.

Regarding concubines and divorce, this would only be applicable to divorce initiated by women but Jesus was talking to men also when said ‘except for…”
It indicating that there was some immoral behaviour in the part of his wife.

Adultery is still grounds for divorce amongst Jews even today as far as I’m aware.

According to this article (if true) the Pope stated “ that the great majority of sacramental marriages today are not valid, because couples do not enter into them with a proper understanding of permanence and commitment.

“We live in a culture of the provisional,”


This to me makes sense. I don’t believe the Pope is saying those marriages aren’t real (in normal sense of the word) and filled with love, but that they aren’t sacramental because we live in a society where many of us are shaped by the mindset of divorce as a potential.
Nobody thinks this on their wedding day naturally, but many still have an “unknown subconscious belief” that divorce is a possibility.

 
Last edited:
Porneia happens, in a sense, when adultery is commited (a man who commits adultery is not bound to the person he committed adultery with, because it was also porneia), but porneia is not used to specifically refer to adultery, especially when used in distinction, within the same sentence. Porneia is what can be divorced, not a valid marriage.

If you look at the Greek used in Matthew’s clauses, you can even see that “porneia” is not said to be a “reason, or cause” for divorce but divorce “on porneia” and “a case of porneia” is how the Greek is written.
 
Last edited:
Pope Francis is not continuing the concern and investigation into the number of annulments happening. He is actually just trying to make it easier for the process to happen and happen faster/easier. The previous two Popes were concerned about the decrees being granted. So it seems to me.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t defect in consent make a marriage invalid?
I think Dan is saying, yes it does, but what we consider/judge as “defect of consent” should actually be very rare and unusual.

@acanonlawyer please correct if I’m mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Thanks but it’s quite bizarre tbh. If they take it to be that concrete/rigid, where it’s situations that wouldn’t even happen in reality, then there’s probably no necessity to have those clauses in first place.

It’s just like stating the obvious. With this sort of reasoning they might as well put other examples that are never going happen like “if you marry a duck” the marriage is invalid
Well, the reason those provisions are in the law is because those situations have happened and so they could certainly happen again. Perhaps not in my own culture and/or not in cases I see personally… but the law is for the whole world.
What happens when judges have opposing views? Who gets to ultimately decide the state of the marriage in this situation?
It’s a simple “majority rules” situation, usually 2 out of 3 majority.

Dan
 
I think Dan is saying, yes it does, but what we consider/judge as “defect of consent” should actually be very rare and unusual.
Yes, that’s the idea. Pardon the unclear sentence construction.

Dan
 
The point, was how can proof not be unanimous.? Proof is proof.

Yes. And Church and State both will not afford adultery as grounds for fault when both spouses have commited adultery. Even no fault states can afford fault based lawsuits.

Yet terms of annulment differ because definitions of marriage differ.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Ammi:
The point, was how can proof not be unanimous.? Proof is proof.
Because humans are humans. That’s why there is more than one judge.
Even the State does not convict without unanimous decision, regarding serious crimes (matters). Why would one judge not see proof, if proof existed?
 
Last edited:
Even the State does not convict without unanimous decision, regarding serious crimes (matters).
This isn’t a criminal case, first of all. Also, the judge isn’t the same as a jury. The Supreme Court, for example, frequently makes decisions from which several of the judges dissent.
 
This isn’t a criminal case, first of all.
Its equally significant, and to find a defect in a marriage vow is often a crime against the Sacrament/spouse. What spouse does not ligitimately feel wronged by an invalid marriage (due to defect of consent)?
 
Last edited:
Its equally significant, and to find a defect in a marriage vow is often a crime against the Sacrament/spouse. What spouse does not ligitimately feel wronged by an invalid marriage (due to defect of consent)?
Hence the multiple judges.
 
Right, but why not unanimous decision? If it is proof, the why would one judge disagree?
 
Right, but why not unanimous decision? If it is proof, the why would one judge disagree?
Because they’re human, and bring that to their ability to judge. They are not God, who ultimately is the only one who knows the fullness of truth about every human heart.

Since God is not going to render judgment in individual cases, we rely on the Church he established, and that he gave the power to bind and loose.

This is how God’s Church chooses to evaluate cases of nullity. And so we abide by the decision made by the Tribunal. Or appeal it if we disagree, and abide by the decision of the Roman Rota. It’s the process the Church has put in place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top