Protestants and divorce

[schaick]

Why? Can’t 2 people have children without being married?

I can think of a situation in which 2 people who “married” of their own free will that was not a marriage–because the man was already married.

Thus, even though the man and woman were together of their own free will, they were not married.

We aren’t talking about extramarital sex here but sex in a marriage.

OK so I miss another case! LOL!!

 

[larkin31]

I’m just going out on a limb, larkin, but were your parents divorced?

Chances are about even, no? There is much divorce all around me, in my family and my community.

No one is 100% honest.

But when you make a vow, you ought to be. I mean, if you can lie when you look into your bride’s eyes, then, really, what’s the point of all of it?

The “point”? The point was trying to please a Catholic family AND marry their daughter whom I loved more than I loved them or their church or their God. And my fiancee knew I was not swearing at 100% veracity on that note. Like I said, I was not willing to wager, say, HER life that we would never divorce or annul.

But we should stick to the topic rather than critique “my” integrity. I confessed the fault. It is a bit uncharitable to dwell on it, don’t ya think?

 

[PRmerger]

Chances are about even, no? There is much divorce all around me, in my family and my community.

Ah. That speaks volumes.

This is another of the devastating effects of divorce: loss of faith.

It makes sense, does it not? If you witness the crumbling of the foundational relationship in your life through your parents’ divorce, it makes you question the foundational relationship between you and God, yes?

 

[larkin31]

Ah. That speaks volumes.

This is another of the devastating effects of divorce: loss of faith.

It makes sense, does it not? If you witness the crumbling of the foundational relationship in your life through your parents’ divorce, it makes you question the foundational relationship between you and God, yes?

Jeez, no.

I was born again (full on conversion, knocked down in a street kind of thing) ten years after that divorce.

No, all these events are unconnected to anyone’s marital status.

 

[PRmerger]

The “point”? The point was trying to please a Catholic family AND marry their daughter whom I loved more than I loved them or their church or their God. And my fiancee knew I was not swearing at 100% veracity on that note. Like I said, I was not willing to wager, say, HER life that we would never divorce or annul.

Really. Your bride knew that you were marrying her without the intention of “until death do we part”?

But we should stick to the topic rather than critique “my” integrity. I confessed the fault. It is a bit uncharitable to dwell on it, don’t ya think?

As you wish. I will mention it no more with the exception of this thought: your “confession” (made as a BTW) seemed a bit glib, so you ought not fault us for “dwelling” on it. I would never have guessed that it bothered you to have made that vow untruthfully.

 

[PRmerger]

Jeez, no.

I was born again (full on conversion, knocked down in a street kind of thing) ten years after that divorce.

No, all these events are unconnected to anyone’s marital status.

I completely disagree.

You are an agnostic because of the hurtful effects of your parents’ divorce.

 

[larkin31]

I completely disagree.

You are an agnostic because of the hurtful effects of your parents’ divorce.

You are an idiot and not listening.

 

[PRmerger]

We aren’t talking about extramarital sex here but sex in a marriage.

There is nothing about a union having children making it “magically” be a marriage.

 

[PRmerger]

Please read this list by a divorced Christian woman. Especially those who judge and shame those who have experienced divorce.

divorcehelpforchristianwomen.com/Divorce-List.html

I want Christians to know:

1. It takes 2 people to make a marriage work. Just because I’m divorced doesn’t mean I didn’t do everything in my power to save my marriage.
2. My marriage was not doomed by some sort of fatal flaw in me, so please stop looking for one. Divorce is a heavy enough burden to bear without adding shame to the load.
3. I did not suddenly want to be with only single women all the time. I value men’s (name removed by moderator)ut, and need to witness healthy marriages to heal. My grief is compounded when I’m excluded from groups and friends simply because I’m divorced.
4. I define myself by more than my marital status. I’m also a mom, a reader, a choir member, writer, health-nut, home-owner, dog-lover, friend, and worshiper. Please don’t think you have nothing in common with me just because I’m divorced.
5. I do not need to hear another Bible verse. I need acceptance from people who will affirm my worth and give me a place to belong. Please allow me to be where I’m at even if it makes you uncomfortable.
6. There is no set time when I will be “over it.” Healing needs to happen on many levels. I have to double back through my deepest wounds often to learn new responses. That doesn’t mean, however, that I’m not making progress.
7. Not everything about my ex spouse is bad. Please don’t make a future positive relationship between him and my kids any harder for me by making derogatory remarks about him.
8. I need friends who will be sounding boards to help me think through decisions about my home, career and parenting. I do not need people to tell me what I “should” do or what they would do if they were in my shoes. That only undermines my already fragile self-confidence.
9. If you really want to help me, encourage my children to honor their mother. I take responsibility for being honor-worthy, but on Mother’s Day, my birthday and Christmas my kids could use an extra push in the right direction.
10. I have a lot to offer. The lessons I’ve learned through divorce would probably bless anyone who got to know me. Yes, I’ve been wounded and need the church, but I’ve also discovered that the church needs me just as much.

divorcehelpforchristianwomen.com/Divorce-List.html

Yes, everything you’ve said, Philena, is consistent with Catholic teaching on divorce.

Certainly you are always welcome in the church!

 

[otjm]

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”.

For most Protestants when a Catholic claims they never allow divorce…we acknowledge that for all practical purposes…anullment is a “Catholic divorce”…we understand there is no divorce policy in play…but whether “annulled” or “divorced” two people who pledged their lives to one another have their relationship, which everyone understood to be a marriage, ended.

The misused role of annulment IN the Catholic church have most Protestants rolling their eyes when we hear…“Catholics do not beleive in divorce.”…it just seems to get practiced as much among Catholics as it does among Protestants. Whether that is a “fair” assesment or not is a totally different issue.

Approximately 85% of Catholics who have gone through a civil divorce never apply for a decree of nullity. Out of the remianing 15%, 7% have obtained a decree of nullity, and 8% have either received a decision that the marriage is valid, or have withdrawn because they did not have sufficient evidence to obtain a decree of nullity.

Whether or not the decree of nullity is “misused”, or inmproperly given is hardly a simple issue; the fact that Protestants “roll their eyes” at the issue is not much different than the fact that Protestants “roll their eyes” at a number of things about the Catholic Church - which include our belief that Christ is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist, that a Catholic who has committed a serious sin must confess to a priest, that the Church has been given the gift, through the Holy Spirit, of infallibility in matters of faith and morals, that faith is handed down through both Sacred Scripture and Tradition… the list goes on and on.

Protestants “roll thier eyes” too often because they know too little of what the Church actually teaches, and instead rely on other sources for their “information”.

 

[Saved_Lady]

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.

~Liza

An annulment is a divorce no matter what you call it. It is just a way that satifies your conscience. Saying it never existed, when you went through everything that it takes to be married, is ridiculous. Our church never dissolves a valid marriage either, the married couple decides to dissolve, then a judge makes it legal. Do not judge, lest ye be judged.
God Bless.

 

[Seektruefaith]

Didn’t Henry VIII have a strong case for annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn yet obviously the decree of nullity was not granted –

This is my first post so hopefully I’m doing this right.

Katherine of Aragorn was first married to Henry VIII’s brother Arthur. They married and a few months later both became gravely ill. Arthur actually died from the illness. She was close to death but recovered. They were married for just over 4 months when he died. Katherine to her deathbed claimed the marriage was never consummated. Henry VIII claimed his marriage to Katherine should be annulled because of her previous marriage to his brother.

Tons of info on Katherine & this at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_of_Aragon#As_wife_and_widow_of_Arthur

 

[4Squarebaby]

An annulment is a divorce no matter what you call it. It is just a way that satifies your conscience. Saying it never existed, when you went through everything that it takes to be married, is ridiculous. Our church never dissolves a valid marriage either, the married couple decides to dissolve, then a judge makes it legal. Do not judge, lest ye be judged.
God Bless.

I pretty much said the same thing on the first page of this thread. The judge just administers what already happened. King David in the most famous Biblical example tore a marraige asunder. Not a civil authority who registered the deed.

I have no experience with Catholic annulments but with civil annulments in the Philippines the legal tactic is to make the case for divorce then add the rider of a forensic pschologist to say it was because the other party was too retarded to marry in the first place. Then everybody nodes and winks. Its funny that in a land with no divorce every woman over 35 you see on TV is on her second marriage and every Valentines Day mayors hold mass weddings for couples whose “legal” spouse finally died so they can remarry.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

I don’t blame God; I no longer believe in one.

I confess that I am not 100% honest nor 100% sincere. I am not bragging, but telling you the truth. I actually believe that we humans frequently make pledges to ENCOURAGE ourselves to try hard even though we could not wager our lives that we would fulfill the “promise.”

[SIGN]You clearly stated [/SIGN]that to seek a divorce was selfish. You were unambiguous about it. And I strenuously object to that over-generalization (you made the claim as if it was true by definition).

No I didn’t. Let me repeat clearly AGAIN EXACTLY what I stated. I said Marriage is making a vow to eachother and promising eachother and God to become one. I said when you give this vow you must give up half of yourself and bound yourself to the other, and alot of people are not willing to do this, and are selfish. Thats what I said. I never said divorce was selfish. Again I said People are, Please do not put words in my mouth.

You are the one who stated you were not willing to give up yourself and work 100% in your marriage. And I am sorry that you do not feel that people with prayers and love and grace from God can and do fulfill these promises. But it happens everyday. If a couple work constantely at their marriage and both give 100% effort all of the time there is no way it can fail. But when a couple makes that promise to God and another person and are not 100% willing to fulfill that promise what do you expect to happen. And I disagree with you. Speaking for myself anyway I never made that pledge and promise to encourage myself for goodness sakes. I made that promise to my husband and God and by the Grace of God he has helped me and my husband fulfill that promise. The Grace he promised us at our marriage that we accepted and hold on to , thats how we keep that vow. BY the Power of that God has given us. So now you say you do not believe in God, you were not sincere about you promises. So you blame the CHurch because they do know about the existance of God, and do expect People to keep those promises they made. Again God did not fail, its when people stand up before him and eachother and do not intend to keep those promises, what did you expect?

 

[rinnie]

Honestly, I think the baseline issue is that most people don’t really feel that a priest or minister or Bishop or God ought to keep anyone in a loveless, miserable marriage, even if adultery is not the issue (although it often becomes one).

And I don’t blame them.

And again this is what you said. You said that you do not feel that most people feel that a Priest, minister or Bishop should keep anyone in a …marriage.

And as I stated if that were true, then you are asking a Priest Preacher etc to also not hold his vows to God to keep his commandments. When a Priest as I explained joins 2 people together he put them together by the Power that God gave him. Because you now choose to doubt God, marriage etc. does not speak for most people as you claim.

Most People who make these vow Do intend and are quite sincere and honest when they make them. Just because you were not again is not the blame of the Priest, God, or the other Person.

 

[Philena]

It takes two people to make a marriage work. However, it only takes one person to destroy a marriage. Sometimes it is best for all concerned - husband, wife, and children, for a divorce to occur. A divorce does not necessarily damage one for life. For the partner who has been abused and wronged, a divorce can be a new beginning and the start of a new life.

An annulment can help in the healing process and let a person move on because you have to examine the things that brought you together in the first place as well as the issues that made the marriage fail. If an annulment is granted then you can have a better idea of what to look for in a partner. If an annulment is not granted then you can live by the teachings of the church and offer up your singleness, or refuse to live by the teachings of the church, re-marry, and become a Protestant.

 

[Apryl]

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.

Well… I do want to moralize

Actually, a few years ago, a woman was visiting for a Mass. At the end of the Mass, we were talking as she attempted to describe the church where she was a member. “Rev. So N So is the Pastor. No… he’s not a Bishop. In our Church, you can’t become a Bishop so long as you have two living wives. Until that first wife dies, he can’t become a Bishop”

???

Either you are ok with divorce and remarriage (and I know that many are not… esp those who claim to live by the letter of scripture) or you are not

But then, they want to wag their fingers at Catholics and the stance that divorce and remarriage is wrong, as it always has been.

 

[jmcrae]

Didn’t Henry VIII have a strong case for annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragorn yet obviously the decree of nullity was not granted –

Right. And if he’d been working with a modern day priest, it would never have gotten to the Tribunal - the priest would have simply advised him to forget about it, and resign himself to remaining single for the rest of his life. The reason was that at the time of the wedding, King Henry already knew that the marriage was irregular, and so as not to have the children of that marriage declared illegitimate, he requested a dispensation from the Pope to marry her. Having received the dispensation, there was no way that the Pope could then later decide that the marriage was null.

Catherine of Aragorn gave birth to Mary Tudor, who later became the first female ruler of England in the modern era, so it seems that the marriage must have been consummated. What am I missing?

 

[CallistusPM]

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.

This is pretty much a moot question/point today in lieu of the Second Vatican Council. Catholics per se don’t countenance divorce BUT they do allow annulments which, by today’s definition, are almost the same thing. You want a divorce? You ask for an annulment and 90% of the time, the church will approved. Of course, you still need a civil divorce if you want the law to help enforce child support and/or alimony payments and if you wish to marry again. I am not sure a church annulment is accepted by civil authorities in place of civil divorce; maybe in some states? Anyone know the answer to this?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Right. And if he’d been working with a modern day priest, it would never have gotten to the Tribunal - the priest would have simply advised him to forget about it, and resign himself to remaining single for the rest of his life. The reason was that at the time of the wedding, King Henry already knew that the marriage was irregular, and so as not to have the children of that marriage declared illegitimate, he requested a dispensation from the Pope to marry her. Having received the dispensation, there was no way that the Pope could then later decide that the marriage was null.

Catherine of Aragorn gave birth to Mary Tudor, who later became the first female ruler of England in the modern era, so it seems that the marriage must have been consummated. What am I missing?

“The Pope gave a dispensation so that the King might marry his brother’s widow for state reasons. We are to ask the Pope to dispense with his dispensation, also for state reasons?”

• St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons

The people would have accepted Mary’s rule, methinks. Alas! Poor Henry, my country 'twould be Catholic except for thy rebellion…