Protestants and divorce

[otjm]

You’re putting lipstick on a pig!

The RCC is against divorce, agreed. The very definition of annulment testifies to the fact the marriage took place. So if the marriage was deemed valid when consummated, regardless the reason, the CC should not be granting annulments. However they do. Speaking with others regarding this, no one could think any instance where a couple wasn’t granted an annulment. In some instances it took longer than a year, but it was eventually nullified.

The very definition of a decree of nullity does no such thing. You are confusing two issues: a civil contract with a religious sacrament.

A decree of nullity says absolutely nothing about what may or may not have been a civil contract. It only says that the requirements for a sacrament were not present at the time the individuals or one of them made an attempt to cause (confect) a sacrament (to occur). The marriage was not “deemed” valid, rather, it was “presumed” valid. There is a difference between those two words. Consumation does not cause the sacrement; rather, it ratifies it; but consumation can only ratify a sacrament that actually occured. If no sacrament occured, there may be “consumation” (sexual congress) but it ratifies nothing.

I don’t know who you spoke with, but there are approximately 8% of those who are Catholic and divorced who have either had a finding by the tribunal that the marriage is valid, or have not gone to the point of a finding (most usually because there is insufficient evidence). The fact that you have made a minor sampling does not provve anything other than that within your sample, you found no evidence.

And if you can’t find any examples, try Sheila Kennedy - her case was spread all over the news at various times, especially when the Rota made the decidion that the case had been imporperly decided at the tribunal level.

 

[otjm]

Can I go to Retrouvaille alone?

Retrouvaille is designed for couples whose marriage is or has been in crisis. Since it is designed for couples, and I would suspect that it (like Marriage Encounter) has limited spaces for couples choosing to go on retreat, I would presume they would not accept you. The purpose of Retrouvaille is to bring healing to troubled marriages (which, if I understand correctly, includes couples who have divorced but are seeking or willing to seek to reunite). As such, it takes two.

 

[larkin31]

…A decree of nullity says absolutely nothing about what may or may not have been a civil contract. It only says that the requirements for a sacrament were not present at the time the individuals or one of them made an attempt to cause (confect) a sacrament (to occur). The marriage was not “deemed” valid, rather, it was “presumed” valid. There is a difference between those two words. Consumation does not cause the sacrement; rather, it ratifies it; but consumation can only ratify a sacrament that actually occured. If no sacrament occured, there may be “consumation” (sexual congress) but it ratifies nothing…

There are some serious semantic and abstract gymnastics going on in this explanation. I prefer the direct honesty of “divorce,” heretical as it may be.

 

[otjm]

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?

I do not know where you get your statistics, but they are inaccurate. It may be from someone who looks only at the decisions out of tribunals where a decision is actually rendered.

However, that ignores several things: 1) tribunals are not run the way civil courts are; that is, the tribunal does not make a decision in each case. The fact that tribunals actually reach a decision of validity in a few cases does not mean that they have decided all cases; many are filtered out before even reaching the tribunal because of lack of evidence or lack of grounds; and many others are simply withdrawn or allowed to terminate with no decision for lack of follow through. CARA did a survey and found that 85% of divorced Catholics have never even begun the process; out of those who did (15%), 7% received a decree of nullity and 8% did not. So actually, less than 50% of the people who start the process actually receive a decree.

And as far as I know, no state will grant a tribunal’s decision any weight in the matter of a civil divorce; further, it is standard practice that a tribunal will not even allow the filing of the case (let alone having it go to decision) if thee parties are not already civilly divorced.

 

[rinnie]

Can I go to Retrouvaille alone?

Please try to get him to go with you. I will pray for you. I would love to hear a year from now you being one of the people I hear on this site telling what a miracle it is.

Please try!

 

[gretahope]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

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?

From this quote it’s clear you have never been in a marriage that never even had two people in it, in reality. Where from the first day the verbal vow was made it had red flags all over it. To say the one who is abused/ignored is the selfish one because after decades there has been no change and sh/he wants a life?

You said a lot of: “us, they, the two of you”—if one of the “partners” is for all intents and purposes there in body only and ignores the other, won’t go to counseling, won’t “work on the marriage”…then what is that? Two singles living under the same roof. Touching a little on this in Corinthians Paul states that if one unbeliever wants to leave, the other is not to try and hold on. Sounds harsh but a real marriage is TWO people. The Catholic Church recognizes that people make mistakes, and I’m not talking about the people who use the anullment process to get out of something that’s tough.

In the Old Testament there’s a story about a prominent man in a city that had a party , probably got a little drunk , and made a vow he would kill the first person who walked through the door. His only child then walked through. Instead of falling down in repentence, he had her killed…obstensibly b/c he did not want to look bad by not following through w/ a vow. Isn’t that incredible. In this case he sounds like the selfish one, and he’s the one who “kept the vow.”

 

[Seektruefaith]

If you’re looking for more on the Sacrament of Marriage, divorce and annulments as the Catholic Church believes and teaches, I would look to the catechism. Of course, that can still leave questions, but I think they might be fewer and everyone would understand more instead of hypothesizing.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/d.htm (for all sections on divorce)

Specific questions-yes, the priest marries them after Pre-Cana. It seems like you are assuming everything is truly disclosed at that time. Not all priests get to know the couple that well. Some have them attend the retreats & briefly discuss a questionnaire and that’s it. That is not going to disclose all potential issues; it’s mainly geared to get the couple to talk. Hopefully, they’ve already done that. What about mental illnesses, later abuse, etc…? There is no way a few meetings are going to ensure that the Sacrament of Marriage should happen; it’s just to point out where additional discussions should take place and maybe also educate the couple regarding the Sacrament, theology of body, etc.

 

[larkin31]

If you’re looking for more on the Sacrament of Marriage, divorce and annulments as the Catholic Church believes and teaches, I would look to the catechism. Of course, that can still leave questions, but I think they might be fewer and everyone would understand more instead of hypothesizing.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/index/d.htm (for all sections on divorce)

Specific questions-yes, the priest marries them after Pre-Cana. It seems like you are assuming everything is truly disclosed at that time. Not all priests get to know the couple that well. Some have them attend the retreats & briefly discuss a questionnaire and that’s it. That is not going to disclose all potential issues; it’s mainly geared to get the couple to talk. Hopefully, they’ve already done that. What about mental illnesses, later abuse, etc…? There is no way a few meetings are going to ensure that the Sacrament of Marriage should happen; it’s just to point out where additional discussions should take place and maybe also educate the couple regarding the Sacrament, theology of body, etc.

So? What does this change? The same is true in Protestant churches (basically).

 

[KathleenGee]

Sorry if I am repeating others, but at a Catholic wedding it is the man and woman who marry each other and the priest is witness.

We are members of the Church, and the marriage is united to the church, the believers. To say the marriage never existed is the work of the church. I know a situation where a couple had been married many years and with a large, devout family. The one partner applied for an annulment and was personally rebuked for inquiring about getting one. When the facts were then laid out, the official who said such a remark greatly apologized considering what had happened in this marriage. What was hard were parishioners then seeing the partner remarry. People were terribly judgmental.

Catholics here have already brought forward what constitutes a valid marriage, and the onus is on each partner themselves. There are people out there who fall in love, and are incapable of nurturing and supportive of their married partner, let alone their children.

We live in times where people are very quick to marry, and usually the problem is psychological immaturity and much disrespect for the other.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Did he receive a Papal dispensation at the time of the wedding? (I am thinking, probably not.)

I am not certain, but I am fairly sure that it happens(acquiring a papal dispensation and later an annulment).

 

[CallistusPM]

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.

My dear lady, you are tilting at windmills. To say the church never dissolves a valid marriage is simply fallacious. The church obviously placing a new and more modern definition on the term “valid” since Vatican II has become an annulment mill, approving the vast majority of cases which flies in the face of the Traditional Church. I was divorced in pre Vatican II days and applied for an annulment and was denied by the local ordinary. I was , however, encouraged to continue the practice of my faith. I was not denied any sacraments because I was still considered married in the eyes of Holy Mother Church. Of course, I would never be allowed to remarry unless my wife passed away. Now, after the Second Vatican Council, my wife remarried and then applied for a church annulment which she had no trouble in obtaining. Is this so called “Catholic Church” today (Novus Ordo version,) the Catholic Church of our forefathers; the traditional and orthodox church that has come down to us from the church fathers throughout the ages? I think not. It is a sham and a shell of the original church founded by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and entrusted to St. Peter, the church fathers and all that have come after them. Somewhere along the way, something terribly wrong has occurred. Callistuspm

 

[tomarin]

My dear lady, you are tilting at windmills. To say the church never dissolves a valid marriage is simply fallacious…

Don’t forget Christ’s promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church. If you believe everything you wrote above, it follows that you either believe that Christ wasn’t telling the truth, or the Catholic Church was not the church He founded, and if the latter is true then you’re contradicting the premise of your argument (namely that the pre-Vatican II Church was the Church that Christ founded).

So you’re really opening up a can of worms, seems to me.

 

[rinnie]

From this quote it’s clear you have never been in a marriage that never even had two people in it, in reality. Where from the first day the verbal vow was made it had red flags all over it. To say the one who is abused/ignored is the selfish one because after decades there has been no change and sh/he wants a life?

You said a lot of: “us, they, the two of you”—if one of the “partners” is for all intents and purposes there in body only and ignores the other, won’t go to counseling, won’t “work on the marriage”…then what is that? Two singles living under the same roof. Touching a little on this in Corinthians Paul states that if one unbeliever wants to leave, the other is not to try and hold on. Sounds harsh but a real marriage is TWO people. The Catholic Church recognizes that people make mistakes, and I’m not talking about the people who use the anullment process to get out of something that’s tough.

In the Old Testament there’s a story about a prominent man in a city that had a party , probably got a little drunk , and made a vow he would kill the first person who walked through the door. His only child then walked through. Instead of falling down in repentence, he had her killed…obstensibly b/c he did not want to look bad by not following through w/ a vow. Isn’t that incredible. In this case he sounds like the selfish one, and he’s the one who “kept the vow.”

What are you talking about. I never said that a person who was abused is selfish. I said that when 2 people take that vow to God to honor and obey and have no intention of keep it and have no intention of giving up part of themself for the other that is selfish. So please go back and read what I said.

And my favorite part is how its so clear to you that I have never been in a marriage that even had 2 people in it. I have been married since I was 19 years old and will be married 30 years this year. So thats priceless. Can’t wait to tell my DH that one. I will have to ask him where he has been

 

[jmcrae]

I am not certain, but I am fairly sure that it happens(acquiring a papal dispensation and later an annulment).

I am equally certain that it does not.

 

[prodigal-sun]

Can I go to Retrouvaille alone?

I believe you can, Where are you located. You may PM me if you like and I can help you!

Peace!

 

[grace_singh]

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.

it is basically just a lack of respect for the authroity of the Scriptures.

it is similar to the reasoning Protestants use to ordain women, excuse homosexuality, an a host of other ills.

“oh, you see, times have changed, and the situation was so-and-so, and God is loving and forgiving, therefor it’s ok!”

yes, but what does Scripture say? the Word of God is clear that if a woman divorces, she is not to seek another husband (1 Corinthians 7:10-11), that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), and that the two whom God has made one are not to be seperated (Matthew 19:4-6).

but people don’t like to listen… neither do they like to listen to the Bible’s words on many other issues which may be difficult for them to accept. being a Christian means crucifying the flesh, obeying God, and sacrificing for His sake. making God’s standards your own, and not the other way around.

sadly, many Protestants have lost or never had this love for God. for many, being a Christian is mainly about going to church, feeling superior to Catholics, and reading the Bible as allegory or as suggestions, if at all. and many churches don’t do a lot to help their congregations see the Christian life differently, either.

it’s really a problem only God can fix, and cure. if a person is estranged from God even while sitting in church, they aren’t going to want to follow His Word, or see it as relevant. going to church is not the same as being in Christ, or alive to God.

 

[prodigal-sun]

There are some serious semantic and abstract gymnastics going on in this explanation. I prefer the direct honesty of “divorce,” heretical as it may be.

This is because you & your thoughts are of this world and can only see through a secular lens. Christ Church was created and is sustained by Christ. The Church upholds his teaching and sees with the eyes of Christ. This is why your point of view is so bleak and negative, It lacks anything of the living and only serves Death.

Peace!

 

[CallistusPM]

I’m interested to know where you grabbed these stats from on the 90%? Can you please show a Valid sacramental marriage that was given anullmnet?

Peace!

I am sorry but I cannot put my hands on this stat but I can assure you, unequivically, that this percentage is close to accurate. I receive my info from such periodicals as: The Remnant, A Catholic Fortnightly, PO Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025; New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave.,Berkeley, CA, 94706; The Latin Mass, A journal of Catholic culture and tradition, Published by Keep the Faith, Inc., 391 E.Virginia Terrace, Santa Paula, CA, 93060.
I just read in one of the fore mentioned that Pope Benedict is quite upset at the inordinate number of annulments granted by the North American Church. Unfortunately, I cannot sight name, page, etc. as I take these, when I have read them, to the local Novus Ordo church and leave them in the lobby for anyone who wishes a true explanation of what is taking place in the neo church today. Rest assured, however, I have seen these stats many times in these periodicals in the past and they are a vast contradiction to the teachings of the pre-councilor church.
I think you will find that, for example, US Senator Ted Kennedy’s first marriage was annulled after many years and many children. His wife, a devout Episcopalian was appalled at how easy it was for her husband to obtain an annulment and remarry again within the church. I could also sight you my own personal experience but find it far too personal to reveal to the general public. Just do the research and I think you will find that in the pre council church, the granting of annulments were rather difficult to obtain and subject to intense scrutiny. Today, the vast majority are approved.
Let me leave you with a quote: “Any change except to eliminate an evil, is an evil.” Plato

 

[prodigal-sun]

I am sorry but I cannot put my hands on this stat but I can assure you, unequivically, that this percentage is close to accurate. I receive my info from such periodicals as: The Remnant, A Catholic Fortnightly, PO Box 1117, Forest Lake, MN 55025; New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave.,Berkeley, CA, 94706; The Latin Mass, A journal of Catholic culture and tradition, Published by Keep the Faith, Inc., 391 E.Virginia Terrace, Santa Paula, CA, 93060.
I just read in one of the fore mentioned that Pope Benedict is quite upset at the inordinate number of annulments granted by the North American Church. Unfortunately, I cannot sight name, page, etc. as I take these, when I have read them, to the local Novus Ordo church and leave them in the lobby for anyone who wishes a true explanation of what is taking place in the neo church today. Rest assured, however, I have seen these stats many times in these periodicals in the past and they are a vast contradiction to the teachings of the pre-councilor church.
I think you will find that, for example, US Senator Ted Kennedy’s first marriage was annulled after many years and many children. His wife, a devout Episcopalian was appalled at how easy it was for her husband to obtain an annulment and remarry again within the church. I could also sight you my own personal experience but find it far too personal to reveal to the general public. Just do the research and I think you will find that in the pre council church, the granting of annulments were rather difficult to obtain and subject to intense scrutiny. Today, the vast majority are approved.
Let me leave you with a quote: “Any change except to eliminate an evil, is an evil.” Plato

Well you would really have to find such documentation whether or not you can remeber or not. It is much to easy to pull numbers and throw them into a blanket statement. You should always follow up stats with clear and concise docs.

I would also wonder where OTM gots these stats from, they certainly differ from yours…

"*I do not know where you get your statistics, but they are inaccurate. It may be from someone who looks only at the decisions out of tribunals where a decision is actually rendered.

However, that ignores several things: 1) tribunals are not run the way civil courts are; that is, the tribunal does not make a decision in each case. The fact that tribunals actually reach a decision of validity in a few cases does not mean that they have decided all cases; many are filtered out before even reaching the tribunal because of lack of evidence or lack of grounds; and many others are simply withdrawn or allowed to terminate with no decision for lack of follow through. CARA did a survey and found that 85% of divorced Catholics have never even begun the process; out of those who did (15%), 7% received a decree of nullity and 8% did not. So actually, less than 50% of the people who start the process actually receive a decree.

And as far as I know, no state will grant a tribunal’s decision any weight in the matter of a civil divorce; further, it is standard practice that a tribunal will not even allow the filing of the case (let alone having it go to decision) if thee parties are not already civilly divorced. *"

I would also say that these stats are much closer to what I have learned from the preist who helped me out.

Peace!

Oh yeah I forgot to leave you with a paraphrase: “The Gates of Hades will not prevail against my Church” - Jesus Christ"

 

[Young_Thinker]

I am equally certain that it does not.

But has every annulment that has been granted after 1962 been upon entirely “valid” grounds? I appreciate your opinion. However, I really think that annulments are nowadays granted much more freely than they were before.