Protestants and divorce

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Seems like my figure 90% was an indiscretion. I am certain this is the number I have seen but as has been pointed out so succinctly, I have no facts to back this. However, I stand on my original premise and know far too many examples of couples seeking annulments prior to 1970 to no avail and later, the tribunal reverses its original findings. It is quite obvious therefore that the criteria was [SIGN]changed as a result of the more lenient ecumenical approach taken by the church [/SIGN]after the Second Vatican Council. This is by no way a criticism on my part, only a personal observation. You can rationalize all you want but in my world, that is the way it is. Critics on this forum will undoubtedly say I am viewing this through rose colored glasses. Perhaps, but my direct involvement indicates otherwise.

No one is denying that as time goes on better understanding of situations can come about. But here is the main point, in order for an annulment to be allowed certain things must be present.

That never changed. In order to have an annulment you must still prove that a marriage never existed. Rather someone was given one before 1970 or after does not change the rules. There still has to be certain things that are present for the Church to give it.

 

[schaick]

This came up before in the thread, and I think it’s a little more complicated than you describe it. Firstly, I didn’t think a Catholic could validly marry a Protestant with a minister officiating. That marriage wouldn’t have the Church’s blessing. Secondly, the Catholic Church does recognize Protestant marriages as valid as long as the two people being married are baptised Protestants. If these two people should decide to convert to Catholicism, they would do so as a married couple in the eyes of the Church. So it’s not accurate to say that the Church doesn’t regard Protestant marriages as valid.

Actually my divorced Christian son [decided at 3 months could not have children with the lady and at 10 months divorced] did just marry a divorced Catholic girl [was married 2 years] in our home by our Pastor. She has not yet gotten an annulment. So propabaly they are not married by Catholic standards but by Christian standards they are.

To whoever said Christians just say ok you are forgiven- They both went through councelling before their divorces, did much soul searching, tears, begged for forgiveness from GOD, talked with Pastor, etc… So no Christains don’t just say ok you are forgiven.

I still say- Annulment whitewashes the sad fact that people sin and make wrong choices, somtimes causing hurt for the innocent. Anulment sends the message that those involved do not have to take responsibility for their mistakes. Oh, it wasn’t really a marriage!?!

These 2 young kids made lousy choices and have sinned whether she gets an annulment or not, she made a promise to someone before GOD. A covenant, vow.

They have sinned period. GOD is good and in HIS mercy gave HIS only SON that all might live.

I am very surprised the Catholic Church would hide the fact that a marriage did exist and failed and people sinned!! Especially if it is a sacrament.

There has been a change in the tradition of the Catholic Church because of Vatican II? Not sure what this is all about, but is it still considered a sacrament?

You can not change a sacrament from GOD. That is like changing the Eucharist- saying frm this day forward you don’t get the full meal of both Body/Bread and Blood/Wine anymore.

Define sacrament- As a sacrament does the marriage bring you closer to GOD? Is it a gift of grace? What exactly does a marriage as a sacrament do for a Catholic?

And if it is a sacrament why aren’t Priests and Popes allowed the sacrament? Peter was married.

Matthew 5:32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Actually my divorced Christian son [decided at 3 months could not have children with the lady and at 10 months divorced] did just marry a divorced Catholic girl [was married 2 years] in our home by our Pastor. She has not yet gotten an annulment. So propabaly they are not married by Catholic standards but by Christian standards they are. The both went through councilling before their divorces, did much soul searching, tears, begged for forgiveness from GOD, talked with Pastor, etc… So no Christains don’t just say ok you are forgiven.

I still say- Annulment whitewashes the sad fact that people sin and make wrong choices, somtimes causing hurt for the innocent. Anulment sends the message that those involved do not have to take responsibility for their mistakes. Oh, it wasn’t really a marriage!?!

These 2 young kids made lousy choices and have sinned whether she gets an annulment or not, she made a promise to someone before GOD. A covenant, vow.

They have sinned period. GOD is good and in HIS mercy gave HIS only SON that all might live.

I am very surprised the Catholic Church would hide the fact that a marriage did exist and failed and people sinned!! Especially if it is a sacrament.

[SIGN]There has been a change in the tradition of the Catholic Church because of Vatican II? Not sure what this is all about, but is it still considered a sacrament[/SIGN]?

You can not change a sacrament from GOD. That is like changing the Eucharist- saying frm this day forward you don’t get the full meal of both Body/Bread and Blood/Wine anymore.

Define sacrament- As a sacrament does the marriage bring you closer to GOD? Is it a gift of grace? What exactly does a marriage as a sacrament do for a Catholic?

And if it is a sacrament why aren’t Priests and Popes allowed the sacrament? Peter was married.

Matthew 5:32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Could you please tell me what has changed. You say there has been a change so please tell me what changed.

The Sacrment of Marriage has never changed. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace.

And the reason a Priest in the RCC cannot marry is they also took a vow to Christ. It is called Holy Orders.

Can you show me proof that Peter was indeed Married and not a widow. St Paul was not married and neither was Jesus. All that are called to the Roman Rite choose on their own free will give up the right to marriage and imitate St Paul and Jesus Christ. Do you have a problem with that.

You just showed the Scripture anyone who marrys someone who is divorced commits adultery. This is the teaching of the CC. This has always been the teaching of the CC. I do not understand where you see this has changed.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Actually my divorced Christian son [decided at 3 months could not have children with the lady and at 10 months divorced] did just marry a divorced Catholic girl [was married 2 years] in our home by our Pastor. She has not yet gotten an annulment. So propabaly they are not married by Catholic standards but by Christian standards they are.

To whoever said Christians just say ok you are forgiven- They both went through councelling before their divorces, did much soul searching, tears, begged for forgiveness from GOD, talked with Pastor, etc… So no Christains don’t just say ok you are forgiven.

[SIGN]I still say- [/SIGN]Annulment whitewashes the sad fact that people sin and make wrong choices, somtimes causing hurt for the innocent. Anulment sends the message that those involved do not have to take responsibility for their mistakes. Oh, it wasn’t really a marriage!?!

These 2 young kids made lousy choices and have sinned whether she gets an annulment or not, she made a promise to someone before GOD. A covenant, vow.

They have sinned period. GOD is good and in HIS mercy gave HIS only SON that all might live.

I am very surprised the Catholic Church would hide the fact that a marriage did exist and failed and people sinned!! Especially if it is a sacrament.

There has been a change in the tradition of the Catholic Church because of Vatican II? Not sure what this is all about, but is it still considered a sacrament?

You can not change a sacrament from GOD. That is like changing the Eucharist- saying frm this day forward you don’t get the full meal of both Body/Bread and Blood/Wine anymore.

Define sacrament- As a sacrament does the marriage bring you closer to GOD? Is it a gift of grace? What exactly does a marriage as a sacrament do for a Catholic?

And if it is a sacrament why aren’t Priests and Popes allowed the sacrament? Peter was married.

Matthew 5:32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

Matthew 19:8Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

But see you can say what you want. But you do not have the authority to speak for the RCC. The Pope and the Bishops and the Priests do. You do not have Holy Orders to teach the faith, and define the word of God. Thats what counts. Not what YOU think or I think, its what the CHurch knows and teaches.

 

[rinnie]

There’s little use arguing the issue, but let me re-emphasize one point.

What is too seldom recognized is that circumstances and people change over the years. There may be absolutely no impediment to a marriage when a couple takes their vows, but situations arise that have a radical effect upon their marriage. I know of one case where the couple lost a child, and the mother blamed the father. The child was killed in the street while with the father. The father was busy helping a younger child out of her car seat when the oldet child (age 4) dashed across the street to a pizza place, their intended destination. A car hit her.

 Anyway, the mother of the child could not forgive the father - try as she would - and love turned into a deep bitterness. Attempts at revitalizing the marriage (including meeting with their priest, etc.) failed. The wife eventually divorced the husband, which together with the death of the child and his guilt sent him into such a deep depression that he tried suicide. 

   A few years later the ex-wife met a man and the two fell in love. She wanted a Catholic wedding and went for an annulment. She depicted her ex-husband as a morbid, depressed person etc (by that time, true). She was granted an annulment and re-married. I submit that there was no impediment to the first marriage, but the death of that child totally changed the circumstances. 

    People change for other reasons. Maybe they become alcoholics. Maybe their interests change radically, and what was compatibility at the time of marriage develops into a major impediment later. I know a woman who advanced on her job to the point that she was sent on long trips around the world in connection with her work. The husband felt abandoned, resentful, etc. During one of her lengthy absences he found another woman

much more compatible to his life style and eventually the original couple were divorced.

    We could go on and on. 

    Then, of course, the churcfh loses large numbers of people who don't go for an annulment because of money or the hassle and wait involved, remarry, and leave the church. 

    There also is something fishy about a Catholic marrying a Protestant with a minister officiating. The Catholic promises 'till death do we part'. However, if she gets a divorce, okay. The church will marry her again with little problem. There is something arrogant about that, as though Christian marriages performed by Protestant clergy don't count. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant and he always is joking - 'we're living in sin!'. He doesn't believe that for a moment, of course, but has fun with it.

This is a tragic and sad story. But here is something that I must say. What does this story have to do with the annulment. See there are 3 sides to every story. Did you know that? There is her side, his Side and then the truth.

If this woman got an annulment from the Church, were you there, were you in that room when she talked to Father? If you were not there every step of the way of this annulment you have no business making a decision. See God did not give you the authority or the Power of the Holy Spirit to speak for him. But he did give it to the Church. There is something that you do not know about this marriage that was revealed to the Church that they made thier decision on. They do not have to answer to anyone for this decision. If a annulment was granted it came from the power of God. I am sorry you have no faith in the Church which is the living CHrist. Thats what it is and will always be to us.

 

[Roy5]

A couple quick rejoinders.

1. It strikes me that the position of the Church is condescending when it comes to Protestant marriages. It's as though taking the vows in the Catholic Church makes them binding but if in a Protestant Church the Catholic Church doesn't recognize them as binding in the same fashion. In other words, a Catholic married in a Protestant ceremony - promising to love and to cherish until death do us part - doesn't really have to keep those vows as he can be married in a Catholic ceremony next time. Isn't there something wrong with that picture and/or policy? A vow before God is a vow before God. Isn't God present in a Protestant Church. "I am with you always, even to the end of the earth."

 2. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant in a Protestant church with a Catholic priest present. The priest blessed the marriage. However, the marriage certificate had only one place for the officiating clergyman and the minister signed it, and the wedding was entered into the records of the Protestant church. I assume that in the eyes of the Church they have been correctly married, right?

  3. Okay, I know another couple where the bride is/was Catholic but she and her husband ran off and eloped in a wedding performed by a minister. (She was expecting, by the way.) Now, is she married in the eyes of the Church, or is the couple living in sin? Is the baby legitimate in the eyes of the Church? The baby has been baptized in the father's Protestant church and the couple attend that church now. If she joins his church and becomes a Protestant does that change anything as far as the Catholic Church is concerned? Do they no longer live in sin? 

    4. The idea, expressed by at least one poster, that the Church cannot err in the area of annulments (and that we have no right to question such decisions) strikes me as very shaky. Those who decide on annulments are human beings, like everybody else. Certainly a number of key bishops and even cardinals have made mistakes in judgment. For example, consider the priests who had been involved in predatory sexual activity and then were reappointed to different parishes! The Church is still paying for mistakes made by clergy, both the predators and their superiors, in such situations.

     The annulment process is a church divorce, nothing else. It even seems to vary from diocese to diocese. Some are liberal in granting them. Some are not. Does that suggest that the tribunals don't make mistakes!?

 

[Young_Thinker]

Yes, but I was thinking perhaps they would have been more isolated without the English on their side and could have been persuaded to return to the Catholic fold. The English Reformation is often portrayed as something of a tipping point, I’m not sure why.

In a way it was, but Protestantism certainly would have survived without the Anglicans’ emergence.

 

[Young_Thinker]

What does that have to do with changing the teaching of the Church that has already been confirmed. The RCC is guided by the Holy Spirit and the HS is forever teaching and we are going to be forever gaining better understandings of what Jesus taught.]

Where is that changing what has already been taught

Perspective, for one thing, has changed to some extent in the past half-centuryI.e. through Vatican II).

 

[PRmerger]

A couple quick rejoinders.

1. It strikes me that the position of the Church is condescending when it comes to Protestant marriages. It's as though taking the vows in the Catholic Church makes them binding but if in a Protestant Church the Catholic Church doesn't recognize them as binding in the same fashion. In other words, a Catholic married in a Protestant ceremony - promising to love and to cherish until death do us part - doesn't really have to keep those vows as he can be married in a Catholic ceremony next time. Isn't there something wrong with that picture and/or policy? A vow before God is a vow before God. Isn't God present in a Protestant Church. "I am with you always, even to the end of the earth."

Catholics, as it were, are “citizens” of the Catholic Church; thus they must follow the “government’s” criteria for marriage. If they don’t follow the correct form, then they are not validly married.

Just like citizens of the US must follow the the government’s criteria for marriage. If 2 people claim to be married, yet did not apply for a marriage license, their “marriage” is not valid, for they did not follow the correct form.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying that if a Catholic was not “validly” married by a Priest/Deacon in a Catholic Church a man can tear a marriage asunder even if God detest divorce? Only it is called a nullity and not a divorce?

They were never married in the sight of God, to begin with. God was not present at the “wedding.” Therefore, there is nothing for “man” (or woman) to “wrest asunder” - a valid Sacrament never existed.

A civil contract not involving God did exist, and that is what is severed in a decree of divorce.

 

[otjm]

There’s little use arguing the issue, but let me re-emphasize one point.

What is too seldom recognized is that circumstances and people change over the years. There may be absolutely no impediment to a marriage when a couple takes their vows, but situations arise that have a radical effect upon their marriage. I know of one case where the couple lost a child, and the mother blamed the father. The child was killed in the street while with the father. The father was busy helping a younger child out of her car seat when the oldet child (age 4) dashed across the street to a pizza place, their intended destination. A car hit her.

 Anyway, the mother of the child could not forgive the father - try as she would - and love turned into a deep bitterness. Attempts at revitalizing the marriage (including meeting with their priest, etc.) failed. The wife eventually divorced the husband, which together with the death of the child and his guilt sent him into such a deep depression that he tried suicide. 

   A few years later the ex-wife met a man and the two fell in love. She wanted a Catholic wedding and went for an annulment. She depicted her ex-husband as a morbid, depressed person etc (by that time, true). She was granted an annulment and re-married. I submit that there was no impediment to the first marriage, but the death of that child totally changed the circumstances.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who supposedly have never seen the decree of nullity itself, let alone the case file, can proffer so much wisdom and knowlege of the case.

To begin with, citing one case which may have (or may not have) been wrongly decided out of 50,000 or 60,000 cases decided in the United States that same year is not proof that all cases, or most cases, or many cases or even one other case was also wrongly decided. It simple means that case may or may not have been wrongly decided; and unless you state all the facts of the case (that is, quote the case file) and actually quote the findings of the tribunal, neither you nor I know much of anything of value about the case; nor the facts.

People change for other reasons. Maybe they become alcoholics. Maybe their interests change radically, and what was compatibility at the time of marriage develops into a major impediment later. I know a woman who advanced on her job to the point that she was sent on long trips around the world in connection with her work. The husband felt abandoned, resentful, etc. During one of her lengthy absences he found another woman
much more compatible to his life style and eventually the original couple were divorced.

    We could go on and on.

That neither proves nor disproves anything. People have been human since the time of Adam. They have sinned since the time of Adam. Welcome to reality. And often, they make decisions before the Church makes decisions; or in spite of the fact that the Church never has an opportunity to make a decision. Ultimately they are responsible for the moral or immoral choices they make. Someone may have had a simulated (that is, not sacramental) marriage for 10, 15 years or more, had a rough patch during their objectively sinful status of serial fornication, fallen in love with someone else, obtained a civil divorce, gotten another civil marriage, and then finally come to the Church seeking to sort out things. Their actions we can all agree were immoral in part (although we may not agree which ones). But that has nothing to do with the fact the 15, 20 or mroe years ago they entered into a relationship that was not a sacrament. That does not excuse their subsequent behavior; but neither does it impact the fact that the marriage was not sacramental at the start. Nothing else bears on the validity.

Then, of course, the churcfh loses large numbers of people who don’t go for an annulment because of money or the hassle and wait involved, remarry, and leave the church.

People were leaving the Church far before the change to the 1983 code. They are adults; the church does not hide its beliefs under a bushel basket; and they are responsible for the choices they make.

The Church does not want to lose people; but it is not going to accomodate them if they violate the rules, just so they can retains some form of “membership”.

There also is something fishy about a Catholic marrying a Protestant with a minister officiating. The Catholic promises ‘till death do we part’. However, if she gets a divorce, okay. The church will marry her again with little problem. There is something arrogant about that, as though Christian marriages performed by Protestant clergy don’t count. I have a Catholic friend who married a Protestant and he always is joking - ‘we’re living in sin!’. He doesn’t believe that for a moment, of course, but has fun with it.

Yes there is arrogance; and that is one of the sins people commit. Your point?

 

[4Squarebaby]

They were never married in the sight of God, to begin with. God was not present at the “wedding.” Therefore, there is nothing for “man” (or woman) to “wrest asunder” - a valid Sacrament never existed.

A civil contract not involving God did exist, and that is what is severed in a decree of divorce.

Well as a representative of the rest of the world i can see this and ask what Captain Kirk once asked, “What does God need with a starship”. In concept God is so petty that he is present at every marriage in the world except in the case where the parents of one marriage partner had a Priest, with proper apostolic succession say I baptize thee 18 years or more before. Then a brother Priest also with the proper credentials inside of a building with the proper legal ownership must perform the ceremony otherwise God is not present and no marriage exists. By definition the church has said that a large percentage of its members compared to the rest of the world are not married
thus in this aspect of life the average “Catholic” is much more likely to live in sin then anyone else in the world.

So in the Church’s opinion God actually does not see unless church rules are followed? Is God so small that he needs a man to provide His eyes and ears?

 

[larkin31]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who supposedly have never seen the decree of nullity itself, let alone the case file, can proffer so much wisdom and knowlege of the case. …

Can you post the text of one? I would be interested to read one.

 

[schaick]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Could you please tell me what has changed. You say there has been a change so please tell me what changed.

The Sacrment of Marriage has never changed. A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace.

And the reason a Priest in the RCC cannot marry is they also took a vow to Christ. It is called Holy Orders.

Can you show me proof that Peter was indeed Married and not a widow. St Paul was not married and neither was Jesus. All that are called to the Roman Rite choose on their own free will give up the right to marriage and imitate St Paul and Jesus Christ. Do you have a problem with that.

You just showed the Scripture anyone who marrys someone who is divorced commits adultery. This is the teaching of the CC. This has always been the teaching of the CC. I do not understand where you see this has changed.

No, that is what I am asking!! LOL!

I am not Catholic. I am picking up from Catholic posters bits that makes it sound as if something has changed since Vatican II? So I am asking what has changed? or what did Vatican II change?

BUT** if marriage is a sacrament **as Catholics believe then why deny a sacrament to Priest, Pope, Cardinal- all the whoever that take a vow?

What? “A sacrament is an outward sign instituted by Christ to give Grace.” Do you mean like the **gift of grace **from GOD- Jesus dying on the cross for our sins?

“choose on their own free will give up the right to marriage”- if they choose, can they be married?

A hint here of Peter’s marriage here, but we don’t know if she is still alive:
Matthew 8

14When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

Confirmed here, Peter’s wife goes with him as he preaches:
1 Corinthians 9

5Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?

Off topic - which also points to the fact that after Jesus, Mary did have more children.

 

[Young_Thinker]

There is also the issue of the Petrine Privilege.

 

[jmcrae]

Can you post the text of one? I would be interested to read one.

No, of course not. The information is totally private, and absolutely nobody’s business, except for the people involved.

 

[larkin31]

No, of course not. The information is totally private, and absolutely nobody’s business, except for the people involved.

You sounded like you have seen one. Have you?

 

[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?

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

It is part of the demise of the most basic unit of society, the family. It is a symptom of the contraceptive culture of killing we live in.

 

[jmcrae]

You sounded like you have seen one. Have you?

No. I am happily married to my one and only husband in this life. I hope never to see the contents of a Declaration of Nullity.

 

[larkin31]

It is part of the demise of the most basic unit of society, the family. It is a symptom of the contraceptive culture of killing we live in.

First, the Luther quote is neurotic and extreme.

Second, I don’t consider that the family is suffering demise. I find the family very strong and healthy in most places I encounter it, even in divorced families. I think that naysayers and flag-of-destruction wavers undersell our spirit and resourcefulness and love. In fact, I resent the suggestion that divorce means demise. It is an extremist reaction to a changing dynamic. I teach and see all kinds of family units in the community. And to be honest, child protective services (in my experience) make as many calls to married family homes as to those of other configurations. What’s wrong in households (families) is often unrelated to the marital status of the adults, but rather to the psychological and emotional health of the unit.