Pope revisits 'punishing' rules on Catholic divorce

[phil19034]

The media are reporting the Synods as if the Church is going to adopt the standards of secular society; the reporting is partly ignorance and partly an inability to understand that there might be standards other than those of the secular society. I haven’t seen or heard anything that suggests doctrinal changes from the Synods.

Some people in the media are using this Synod as a way to cause confusion among Catholics, like they did during Vatican II.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If “for worse” mean that a woman is left behind because her husband comes home one day and says I am leaving you. She didn’t want the marriage to end but she simply had no choice. She cannot stop her husband from divorcing her. Why must she say the marriage was invalid from the begging, when she would have stayed for better or worse. If she doesn’t say that she can never find someone who will love and respect her and I am not speaking about family and friends.

Her willingness to stay for better or worse is not in question. It’s all about HIS willingness to stay. If he was willing to stay when they married, and changed his mind later, then she is in the position of the prophet Hosea, and she has the opportunity to become a model of God’s faithfulness. I am not talking about communion here – I take no position on that issue. But I think that God gives us opportunities to step up and be extraordinary, to be heroes.

If my mom had divorced my dad, it would have been understandable, sure. But it wouldn’t have been a model of faithfulness in the face of unfaithfulness.

If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

2 Tim 2:13.

 

[polki]

The wife didn’t make the marriage invalid… the husband did. An annulment doesn’t mean they were never legally married. It means they were never Sacramentally married.

If a husband comes home one day and simply says “I’m leaving you” out of the blue, then it means the husband didn’t honor his vows. If the husband never believed in the vows in the first place, then the Sacrament may have never took place. Even if the wife meant her vows. The Sacrament is performed by BOTH bride and groom, together. They both have to have proper intent to preform the Sacrament. If one of them has an impediment, then it’s keeps the Sacrament from happening.

Marriage is the only Sacrament that a priest or deacon doesn’t preform, they simply guide the process (obviously Baptism can be done by a lay person too, but is typically performed by clergy)

No necessarily. I think there are a lot of assumptions here. What makes a marriage invalid are the circumstances at the time of the marriage. A spouse changing their mind is not a reason to declare the marriage invalid.

In this example, the husband could have entered his marriage believing in his vows, but just changed his behaviour and attitude toward his marriage/wife during the marriage (for whatever reason). That marriage would still be considered valid. If however, during the annulment process the wife was found to not have understood what she was committing to at the time of the marriage, the marriage could be considered invalid even though it was the husband that ultimately left. That’s why every marriage needs to be explored individually or else just not allow divorce/annulments.

 

[pnewton]

No necessarily. I think there are a lot of assumptions here. What makes a marriage invalid are the circumstances at the time of the marriage. A spouse changing their mind is not a reason to declare the marriage invalid.

This brings up an interesting point.

On one hand, the Church does not make the marriage invalid, but only determines that a marriage is invalid.

On the other hand, the person in the marriage probably knows more completely whether the marriage was or was not invalid.

So, since the Church exercise authority in making the determination, then authority can be delegated (and is) making almost all the annulment process a matter of discipline and not doctrine.

I can see no doctrinal reason why a local priest could not be allowed to determine the validity of a marriage, or the person himself, for that matter. Mind you, prudence is an all important consideration, considering our capacity for self-deception, but we already allow people to determine for themselves whether they are in a state of mortal sin.

I do not see where we can appeal to doctrine in saying no change is possible. Unwise, maybe, but it still should be possible.

 

[Mark121359]

I find it sad that so many are protesting so loudly about how mean and nasty the Church is for not allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion. Do you want to know what’s really mean and nasty? The carnage, and complete havoc that divorce thrusts upon children! The deep psychological scars left behind, that follows them into adulthood. We’re so darned concerned about what’s in it for me, me, me, that the true victims of divorce are so very often overlooked. So by all means, let’s rewrite what Jesus said about divorce; “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10, 11-12)…and let’s really open the flood gates! And while we’re at it, let’s take what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about divorce;

2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

…and just rewrite this as well. Besides, they’re only words…right?

Peace, Mark

 

[ProVobis]

Some people in the media are using this Synod as a way to cause confusion among Catholics, like they did during Vatican II.

The translators and interpreters did a pretty good job of that, besides the media.

 

[ProVobis]

I find it sad that so many are protesting so loudly about how mean and nasty the Church is for not allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion. Do you want to know what’s really mean and nasty? The carnage, and complete havoc that divorce thrusts upon children! The deep psychological scars left behind, that follows them into adulthood. We’re so darned concerned about what’s in it for me, me, me, that the true victims of divorce are so very often overlooked.

Precisely.

And allowing communion IMO is only encouraging more of the same behavior in society.

 

[polki]

My thoughts exactly! And I might add, besides more in depth marriage prep, the Church needs to set up more in depth help for marriages that are in trouble. There are a few, but not nearly enough to help couples to (1) feel comfortable approaching the Church when they are in trouble maritally and (2) have more in depth programs and individual counseling for people. They are not even talking about how to help people in a troubled marriage! Statistically speaking, there are a good percentages of marriages that end in divorce that are salvageable. In marriages ending in divorce, (except for abusive situations or very unusual circumstances) most say, within 3 to 5 years that they regret their decision. And for marriages that ‘stick it out’ in trying circumstances, most say they are glad they did (within 3 to 5 years) and most say that their marriages end up stronger than ever in the end. Why aren’t they talking about helping people ‘get over the hump’ in a crisis period? Realistically, this Synod should have taken place 30 years ago or more, with this focus at the top, we may have been able to save a ton of marriages, and may not be in such a critical position today with all the divorced and remarried. Hate to say it but it seems the Church is always a day late and a dollar short. How do you put the spilled milk back in the bottle?

One problem, as I see it, is that in order to apply for an annulment, the Church requires a civil divorce first. So I bet a lot of times when couples feel like they are in a hopeless situation, they may feel that their best option is to file for a civil divorce and then an annulment, thinking this is their only way out of their terrible situation. The “hope” of having their marriage declared annulled justifies and strengthens their decision to divorce ie. “I’m sure I wasn’t sacramentally married in the first place because of X,Y,Z.”

My proposal would be for Catholic couples to be able to “apply” to have their marriages “examined for validity” when they are in crisis and on the brink of failure BEFORE they file for divorce. I bet if more couples were told that their marriages were indeed valid and that there was no “loophole” to leave, AND were given assistance from the Church in “sticking it out”, that there would be fewer civil divorces filed among married Catholics.

I know marriages are considered valid unless otherwise decreed, but would guess a lot of people in broken marriages don’t see theirs at that time as valid because that level of unhappiness is not what marriage is “supposed to be.” Those people would benefit from the Church declaring the validity of their marriage after the wedding and before the civil divorce to reinforce the permanence of the vow IMO.

 

[polki]

Sorry if I’m veering off topic, but I would just like to add one more thought. Technically speaking, most couples who go through Pre Canna classes shouldn’t really have an excuse that they didn’t understand what they were “signing up for” or didn’t understand the “permanence of marriage.” ( Unless in extraordinary circumstances of not being of sound mind, being coerced, poor instruction at the class, etc.) Therefore, with pre canna classes being a requirement for marriage in the Church, I would expect the amount of annulments decreed to decrease.

 

[pnewton]

My proposal would be for Catholic couples to be able to “apply” to have their marriages “examined for validity” when they are in crisis and on the brink of failure BEFORE they file for divorce. I bet if more couples were told that their marriages were indeed valid and that there was no “loophole” to leave, AND were given assistance from the Church in “sticking it out”, that there would be fewer civil divorces filed among married Catholics.

I do not know if this would be a good solution or not, but I would hope that the synod take up this issue. Perhaps there might be something like you suggest. I do like the concept of prevention, something that has not received the attention it deserves on these threads.

 

[polki]

I do not know if this would be a good solution or not, but I would hope that the synod take up this issue. Perhaps there might be something like you suggest. I do like the concept of prevention, something that has not received the attention it deserves on these threads.

Yes I agree divorce prevention needs to be emphasized by the Church. When couples complete Pre Canna it should be crystal clear to them that that they now have all the information about what a sacramental marriage entails, including the permanence of the sacrament. Because of this, divorce is therefore not an option and an annulment will be difficult to get. Getting married in the Catholic Church ought to hold couples to a higher standard.

 

[pnewton]

Because of this, divorce is therefore not an option and an annulment will be difficult to get. Getting married in the Catholic Church ought to hold couples to a higher standard.

In light of the need to prevent divorce, and in accordance with adapting with the times, would it be prudent to have review in writing both the wedding vows and definition of marriage? Such documentation could serve to defend the legitimacy of the marriage and strengthen the resolve to permanency, knowing that an annulment would likely be denied.

 

[polki]

In light of the need to prevent divorce, and in accordance with adapting with the times, would it be prudent to have review in writing both the wedding vows and definition of marriage? Such documentation could serve to defend the legitimacy of the marriage and strengthen the resolve to permanency, knowing that an annulment would likely be denied.

Yes I think that’s a good idea.

 

[Mark121359]

Here’s Cardinal Raymond Burke and his response to Cardinal Kasper’s controversial proposal to make it easier for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion. I must admit, of all the Cardinals, I trust him the most. And his positions on all things Catholic mirror my own. May God Bless him!
youtube.com/watch?v=UBCl5NLs81M&list=UUijDos-LUTh9RQvSCMQqN6Q&index=6

Peace, Mark

 

[Tigg]

I find it sad that so many are protesting so loudly about how mean and nasty the Church is for not allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion. Do you want to know what’s really mean and nasty? The carnage, and complete havoc that divorce thrusts upon children! The deep psychological scars left behind, that follows them into adulthood. We’re so darned concerned about what’s in it for me, me, me, that the true victims of divorce are so very often overlooked. So by all means, let’s rewrite what Jesus said about divorce; “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10, 11-12)…and let’s really open the flood gates! And while we’re at it, let’s take what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say about divorce;

…and just rewrite this as well. Besides, they’re only words…right?

Peace, Mark

Mark, I’m as heartbroken (and outraged) over this as you. Cardinal Burke expounded on your point by saying the whole concern is directed toward only one party and what is the other party to think but that the Church doesn’t respect them?

 

[canis73]

.

I find it sad that so many are protesting so loudly about how mean and nasty the Church is for not allowing those in irregular marriages to receive Holy Communion. Do you want to know what’s really mean and nasty? The carnage, and complete havoc that divorce thrusts upon children! The deep psychological scars left behind, that follows them into adulthood. We’re so darned concerned about what’s in it for me, me, me, that the true victims of divorce are so very often overlooked.

So getting an annulment will leave no scars on the children?
Many couples get a divorce precisely to preserve the children´s psychical health.
Having said this, I´m not up for any doctrinal change, of course, but your statement seemed misleading.

 

[Mark121359]

So getting an annulment will leave no scars on the children?
Many couples get a divorce precisely to preserve the children´s psychical health.
Having said this, I´m not up for any doctrinal change, of course, but your statement seemed misleading.

In 1968 there were 338 annulments. In 1991 there were 61,945. Since then, the explosion has stabilized at around 40,000 U.S. annulments per year. Something’s wrong with that picture…don’t you think? So by all means, let’s open the spigot wide, and speed up the whole process and cause even more scars.

***Peace, Mark ***

 

[JimG]

In 1968 there were 338 annulments. In 1991 there were 61,945. Since then, the explosion has stabilized at around 40,000 U.S. annulments per year. Something’s wrong with that picture…don’t you think? So by all means, let’s open the spigot wide, and speed up the whole process and cause even more scars.

***Peace, Mark ***

Yes, those are some remarkable numbers. Somehow, people forgot how to stay married. Somehow, they forgot how to keep marital vows.

Post 1968 coincides with the contraceptive revolution, which I do not think is a coincidence.

 

[gracepoole]

In 1968 there were 338 annulments. In 1991 there were 61,945. Since then, the explosion has stabilized at around 40,000 U.S. annulments per year. Something’s wrong with that picture…don’t you think? So by all means, let’s open the spigot wide, and speed up the whole process and cause even more scars.

***Peace, Mark ***

There are annulments granted when they shouldn’t have been according to canon law?

 

[JimG]

There are annulments granted when they shouldn’t have been according to canon law?

Or, there are couples who married without meaning what they said in the marriage vows.