Protestants and divorce

[shawn38]

Ok - let’s try this AGAIN.
WRONG. The Tribunal does not “undo” anything. If a marriage is determined to be valid the couple is not free to marry. A divorce is a civil action, and has nothing to do with a valid sacramental union. If a Catholic has a civil divorce they are still considered to be in a valid marriage UNLESS the Tribunal determines that the marriage was invalid at the time of the vows.

At what point is a marriage deemed invalid? At the time the sacrament took place and was blessed by the CC after having attended the marriage prep classes which the priest then deemed the participants free and fit to marry?

My sister’s marriage was deemed valid for 10 years. After divorcing and desiring to remarry did she need to get the first marriage nullified. And of course it was.

Funny thing when talking to her, she said, “Where do you think we get all the ashes for Ash Wednesday?” I had to laugh. Yeah, the burning of the old marriage certificates.

You can put lipstick on a pig.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Interesting you should point out the Philippines situation. My wife is from the Philippines, lived the first 24 years of her life born and raised there. I’ve been there several times. I’ve always observed that they love to point out how they never permit divorce and yet you see plenty of “annulments” (a rose by any other name) and TONS of people cohabitating or just shacking up. There are so many out-of-wedlock births there that it’s mind-boggling. I think at least in the States legal divorce, though I hate it (!!) is at least honest and gives the woman some rights to get alimony and child support.

True, but I wonder is a civil authority who records a couple’s disolving relationship the man tearing it asunder? Or did the husband and wife do that and the judge and clerk just recorded the deed?

Now after the couple has torn itself apart then what? Do we lie to ourselves about the beginning of a relationship as the Republic of the Philippines does when it issues civil annulments? Do we accept the couples confession and allow them to move on with life and choose another partner? Do we tell them for the rest of their lives don’t you dare look at another you sinner?

 

[tomarin]

Funny thing when talking to her, she said, “Where do you think we get all the ashes for Ash Wednesday?” I had to laugh. Yeah, the burning of the old marriage certificates.

I thought they were made from the leftover palm fronds from Palm Sunday.

 

[mark_a]

Does anyone know what is or what are the rationales offered by Protestant denominations for allowing divorce if traditional, orthodox Christianity in the West never allowed it? Is it a side-effect of downplaying or denying the sacramental nature of marriage?

Allowing divorce helps put many a Catholic in Protestant pews.

 

[rev_kevin]

Allowing divorce helps put many a Catholic in Protestant pews.

Thats because the CC has shuned then.
So lets say your husband beats you, you can not divorce him?
If your wife is unfaithful in the marriage, you can not divorce her?

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

But isn’t a marriage that takes place outside the Church by definition invalid?

No. My marriage was between two baptised Christians in a non-Christian ceremony. Although neither I nor my wife are Catholic, this wedding would be considered valid by the Catholic church.

However, if either of us had been Catholic, it would not be. I understand the attempt to justify, but it just comes off as capricious.

We are not looking to divorce, and we are not Catholic now or ever. Had one of us, say, been baptised in the Catholic church, raised Presbyterian, then joined a non-Christian religion, the Catholick church would find grounds to annul.

 

[tomarin]

No. My marriage was between two baptised Christians in a non-Christian ceremony. Although neither I nor my wife are Catholic, this wedding would be considered valid by the Catholic church.

However, if either of us had been Catholic, it would not be. I understand the attempt to justify, but it just comes off as capricious.

We are not looking to divorce, and we are not Catholic now or ever. Had one of us, say, been baptised in the Catholic church, raised Presbyterian, then joined a non-Christian religion, the Catholick church would find grounds to annul.

Right. What I meant to say was, the Catholic who marries in a non-Catholic ceremony does not have a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. Sorry for not being more clear.

My point is just that such a marriage does not need to be annulled because it was never remotely close to being accepted by the Church in the first place (rightly or wrongly).

 

[jmcrae]

Understood…but the reality of divorce still exists among Catholics…and to remove the “stigma” of “divorce” that Catholics have…annulments are for all practical purposes “undo” the “marriage that never occured” by declaring the marriage “null”.

They can only do this if they have reasonable grounds, attested to by witnesses, to understand that one or both of the parties to the marriage didn’t know what was going on, and didn’t understand the promises they were making. Unfortunately, this is all too common in modern times.

For example, we have a young woman marrying a slightly older man. The young woman believes that the older man is going to take care of her, like a father. She is calling it “marriage” when what she really wants is a father-daughter like relationship. Later, the marriage fails, because the husband is expecting his wife to uphold her end of the work in the household. The Tribunal ascertains by interviewing the woman and those who knew her around the time of her engagement and wedding, that the woman did not understand what a “marriage” is, when she entered into it, so they grant a Declaration of Nullity.

Another example would be, a couple go into their marriage expecting that they will be having sex every day. As time passes, the woman finds that she simply hasn’t got the energy for that amount of sex. Her husband divorces her for withholding, and the Tribunal investigates. They find that the couple went into the marriage with unrealistic expectations and a false idea about what marriage is, so again, they grant a Declaration of Nullity.

 

[jmcrae]

My point is just that such a marriage does not need to be annulled because it was never remotely close to being accepted by the Church in the first place (rightly or wrongly).

They still need some kind of official paperwork that shows that no valid marriage took place, though.

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

They still need some kind of official paperwork that shows that no valid marriage took place, though.

My point is that the distinction between the two cases is sophistry. It is capricious. It allows a baptised Catholic out of a marriage where it does not allow those baptised non-Catholics out. It depends on accidents of birth and baptism and not the lived lives of the individuals involved.

 

[lizaanne]

There are way too many issues and questions in this thread to try to address every single one. Here are some links to try to help provide accurate information:

usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_marriage#Validity

dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/marriages/marriages1.htm#10

idotaketwo.com/christian_remarriage.html

This is not a great deal of reading - most if it is in Q&A format.

~Liza

 

[jmcrae]

Thats because the CC has shuned then.
So lets say your husband beats you, you can not divorce him?
If your wife is unfaithful in the marriage, you can not divorce her?

They can divorce in cases where it would be unsafe for them to live together, but they cannot remarry. It is remarriage that causes you to be committing adultery against your spouse; not being divorced.

There are plenty of divorced Catholics who remain single and they are in full communion with the Church.

 

[Dokimas]

Does anyone know what is or what are the rationales offered by Protestant denominations for allowing divorce if traditional, orthodox Christianity in the West never allowed it? Is it a side-effect of downplaying or denying the sacramental nature of marriage?

I ask in order to understand, not to lecture or moralize.

Jesus allowed it for adultery. The CC allows it by annulment, unless I’m mistaken.

 

[jericho777]

Marriage was the first institution God created. God honors all marriage as long as it does not violate biblical principals. Marriage is a spiritual and legal union whether people want to recognize it or not.

God hates divorce Mal 2:16. Biblical divorce is allowed only for a small amount reasons. Adultery and Paul said if you become a believer and your spouse is not and wants to leave then you are not bound.

There is no need for annulments because you’re not bound for the two reasons above. If an annulment is given for any other reason than those two it is an unlawful divorce/annulment according to God.

It does seem harsh but that’s what it says. Let me know if I missed any other scrips.

 

[jmcrae]

My point is that the distinction between the two cases is sophistry. It is capricious. It allows a baptised Catholic out of a marriage where it does not allow those baptised non-Catholics out. It depends on accidents of birth and baptism and not the lived lives of the individuals involved.

The lived life of a baptized Catholic is, or should be, qualitatively different than the life of someone with no exposure to the Church. And if not, then the failed marriage is just one of many failures in that person’s life, that show a general trend of having no idea what he is doing or where he is.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Jesus allowed it for adultery. The CC allows it by annulment, unless I’m mistaken.

This is false, Christ actually revoked the ability to divorce telling the saducees that moses allowed only because of their hard hearts and that God never wanted it that way.

He then authoritatively said that what God brings together let no man put asunder.

Also the Catholic Church does not allow divorce through the anulment. Rather that if a marriage is able to be anulled means that there was never an sacramental marriage to begin with. When a person petitions the Church for an anullment they must prove that the marriage was never valid. This is why it can be quite costly for an anullment to be processed do to all of the background work that must be performed.

Peace!

 

[rinnie]

Thats because the CC has shuned then.
So lets say your husband beats you, you can not divorce him?
If your wife is unfaithful in the marriage, you can not divorce her?

Depends. A husband beating his wife has nothing to with rather a marriage took place in the first place.

While the Church never allows physical abuse the wife can indeed be awarded a legal separation. That means the she cannot marry until the death of her spouse. Tell me Rev Kev in your church do you not agree that when 2 people know that they are being united to God in a Sacrament of Marriage, and both are quite aware of these vows, and marry for indeed the right reason, that they should not be held to these vows?

Would you not try to get them help? Or do you feel is a Man beats his wife instant divorce? And would you not try to help a couple that cheats work out that marriage or is it again grounds for instant divorce?

 

[rinnie]

This is false, Christ actually revoked the ability to divorce telling the saducees that moses allowed only because of their hard hearts and that God never wanted it that way.

He then authoritatively said that what God brings together let no man put asunder.

Also the Catholic Church does not allow divorce through the anulment. Rather that if a marriage is able to be anulled means that there was never an sacramental marriage to begin with. When a person petitions the Church for an anullment they must prove that the marriage was never valid. This is why it can be quite costly for an anullment to be processed do to all of the background work that must be performed.

Peace!

Amen

 

[prodigal-sun]

No. My marriage was between two baptised Christians in a non-Christian ceremony. Although neither I nor my wife are Catholic, this wedding would be considered valid by the Catholic church. It would not be considered valid imediatley but would have to be convalidated.

However, if either of us had been Catholic, it would not be. I understand the attempt to justify, but it just comes off as capricious. Not at all, CHristians from other denominations are not held to the same standard as a those within the Catholic Church. It would not be valid because it would not be sacreamental. Your marriage could be valid and once convalidated… would be.

We are not looking to divorce, and we are not Catholic now or ever. Had one of us, say, been baptised in the Catholic church, raised Presbyterian, then joined a non-Christian religion, the Catholick church would find grounds to annul.

Sounds like this would not be a sacremental marriage…correct?

Peace!

 

[shawn38]

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT A DIVORCE of any sort! A declaration of nullity ONLY declares that no valid marriage EVER existed on the day of the wedding. It never does and never will un-do anything. If a marriage is valid it remains that way until death do they part. The Catholic Church NEVER EVER dissolves a valid marriage. Period.

The Council of Trent, In the case of a divorce, stated the right of the innocent party to marry again was denied so long as the other party is alive, even if the other may have committed adultery.

Because it now was dogma, the only way to get around it was to state the marriage never took place, hence the Decree of Nullity.