Considering that the first disciple to be called by Jesus was married, having been married did not seem to be a bar for Jesus calling men to follow Him and be apostles. So, did Peter divorce his wife, or was he still married, or did she leave him? Regardless, what did Peter think about the statement in Matthew 19, verse 10 "The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”? Did Peter agree with this, or hear this as suggesting he made the incorrect decision in being married?
Seems like widowers who were married only once, who then forsake marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, would be wonderful priests, assuming they are seen as consistent with 1 Tim 3.
You seem to misunderstand what an annulment is. An annulment has nothing to do with how long a marriage lasted or if it was consummated.
So after 25 years and 5 children, in retrospect the man and woman can be determined to not have truly been married as assessed by the state of the individuals at the time of marriage? Any possibility that little clues about the state of one or the other of the spouses may have surfaced over 25 years of raising 5 children?
If there never was a marriage, do one or both of the spouses need to confess fornication, at least 5 times?
And then, have as a deacon, a spiritual leader in the local parish, someone who gave witness to being married for 25 years, yet was deceived, or deceived, about the proper state for a valid marriage before the wedding, during the wedding, and after the wedding. Can you imaging his interpretation from the pulpit of 1 Tim 3:12? "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well."Yes, most likely. In fact, the clues were all there on the wedding day, or else there could not have been a Declaration of Nullity. At least one of the parties lied about something essential, OR at least one of the parties was incapable of contracting a valid marriage due to any one of a number of factors including, an addiction; immaturity; or incomprehension of the duties about to be undertaken. (One man thought that he was stepping in for the woman’s father, and that he was going to be her teacher and mentor. Of course they also had children, but a Declaration of Nullity was granted because he had no idea what it means to be “a husband” at the time of the marriage (and obviously never figured it out later on, either). The woman was granted permission to remarry later on, if she so chooses to do so, but the man was barred from getting married again until he solves his problem, thus showing that receiving a Declaration of Nullity in and of itself does not signify freedom to marry again, but that the Declaration needs to be examined first, before that person can get married again in the Church, just to make sure that there are no notations of that sort on it.
No, since they thought they were married.
Believe me, he would have been examined thoroughly, and any problems that were his fault will have been gone over and over and over again in the Tribunal and also in his preparation process for Ordination.
And it took 25 years to own up to the clues? Which should have been address before the wedding, or as soon as the clues persisted. When it comes to faith, let’s not chose spiritual leaders who have a 25 year history of being deceived, or deceiving. It should not take 25 years to discover/own up to addiction, immaturity, or incomprehension of the duties about to be undertaken, in one’s self, or spouse. What kind of Catholic faith community were they part of that there were not friends or family to encourage them both before and/or after the wedding? 25 years? Let’s not confuse excuses with expanations.
If they were married, then there would be no possibitity of annulment. If there was not a true marriage, then do they have to confess with a contrite heart the sin of fornication? Either there was or was not a true marriage. The great news is that God forgives those who come to Him with a contrite heart. The key is to come to Him with a contrite heart. If there was a true marriage, then no fornication to confess. If there was not a true marriage, then there is fornication to confess, unless of course one was oblivious to being deceived, or deceiving. Either way, not one I would volunteer to be a spiritual leader until sufficient time had demonstrated a history of choices consistent with Christian leadership characteristics.
Why are you asking me? Did I ordain this guy? Take it up with the Pope; he’s the boss of this outfit, not me.
The examination should have been before the wedding. Proper preparation and examination for the Sacrament of Marriage is not to be given a second class seat, by either those desiring to marry, and those preparing them for marriage. Both the “students” and “teachers” fell short.
I’m not his Confessor, or anybody else’s; I have absolutely no idea how that part works.
You don’t consider two years for the legal divorce to go through, four years to get the declaration of nullity, plus 16 years of Seminary to be “enough time?”