That reminds me of a quote in a book I read (I’m paraphrasing) and it helped me to understand this even though it’s secularIt’s up to the Marriage Tribunal to make these decisions; it’s not up to us. Otherwise, it would be chaos, since some people might think that a former marriage was validly contracted, while others might think it wasn’t, and there would be no way for the community to know whether the new marriage was lawful, or not.
So, if one must divorce, it is essential to go to the Marriage Tribunal before one attempts to remarry, so that all of these questions are settled authoritively, and, if the Tribunal gives permission to remarry, no one in the community can dispute that the second marriage is, indeed, lawful in the eyes of God.
The Scripture passages that you cite are often misunderstood, since Jesus was not referring to sexual immorality during the marriage, but to sexual immorality that occurred before the marriage took place. Once a valid marriage takes place, there is nothing here on earth or in Heaven that can possibly ever dissolve it, but if it was not a valid marriage due to sexual immorality prior to the marriage, then there was never a marriage to begin with, and the persons are free to divorce and remarry.
But again, it’s up to the Marriage Tribunal to figure out whether that actually happened, or not - it’s not up to us. A person could not decide on his own that his wife was not really his wife, and therefore, he can just go ahead and marry a new wife, since, obviously, he is going to decide in his own favour, even if his previous wife was as pure as the driven snow and never sinned in her whole life.
Ah…the “never remarry” conundrum.I would say that it is not divorce that is the issue but remarriage…in the sense that those vows cannot be said twice over… as you can’t promise yourself to two people…
as easy as it is for me just to yell out: stay single! (and I apologise because I’m talking in an abstract way whereas I know for you this decision was a reality in your life)
If they remained single it wouldn’t be an issue for anyone I’ve heard discuss this… it’s the fact that remarriage makes the vows void of the meaning in their words.
what would you think of that suggestion in reality? and as an ideal?
S
I can understand this idea… and I’m not Catholic either, but just because one person has behaved badly doesn’t kind of wipe my promises too… I just hope that never happens to me… this is a case of what happens to ideas when they go through reality I guess, and there will always be exceptions to the rule, but for me, unless the promises were void at the time of making then they stand irregardless of behaviour during the actual marriage because even though my partner may break their promise to love and honour me, that doesn’t mean that I can remarry someone else and promise to love and honour another person til death us do part… as I’ve already promised that to someone else… and irregardless of their behaviour during marriage…at the actual time the promise was made it was valid…Ah…the “never remarry” conundrum.
*…it’s the fact that remarriage makes the vows void of the meaning in their words. *
Not at all. Events beyond the person’s control negated those vows.
When I vowed to love and honor my first wife “till death do us part” it certainly didn’t mean (to me) that she could abuse me, cheat on me, desert me, and do whatever and I would then be trapped in a semantic prison forever.
I view the vows as a covenant between two people before God. But that covenant can certainly be broken by sin and rebellion.
Obviously I’m not Catholic and I certainly expect the RCC views all this differently. I am just speaking from a Protestant perspective regarding some similar attitudes of judgment.
…When I vowed to love and honor my first wife “till death do us part” it certainly didn’t mean (to me) that she could abuse me, cheat on me, desert me, and do whatever and I would then be trapped in a semantic prison forever…
quote]
Logically, if you take your marriage vows seriously, and literally, then the only possible way out of the vow that you made to God and to your spouse would be for either you or her to die. So, you are left with the choice to murder her, have a hit put out of her, or wait patiently for her to die, before that vow has been made void, UNLESS, it could be determined that you never entered into that vow, or that she did not. That is the true purpose of an annulment tribunal in The Church; to determine whether or not the sacrement of marriage was properly entered into by all concerned.
Now, in the case of infidelity, physical or mental abuse, or desertion that you mentioned above, I would ask you, when considering marriage to your first wife, would you consider these important things to determine whether you trusted your spouse enough to trust that they would not desert you, cheat on you, and would love you enough not to be physically or mentally abusive? Did you not understand the words of the marriage vows you took? Did you not understand all of those qualifications of the times that you would stick by your spuouse? The times of sickness, and of heatlh, for richer and poorer, etc?
Everyone I have known that were married have had that line, “until deather do we part” in their marriage vows. What does that mean to you? Does death in your definition count as hard times?
I don’t discount that any of the examples that you used to try to make your point are hard things for a marriage to go through, but you didn’t take vows to love and cherish your wife until such time as she makes you angry, or until such time as she (possibly) makes a mistake and is weak with another man, or until she (again possibly for reasons she feels are legitimate) moves out to get away from you. All things like this, that break the trust in a marriage are hard things to work through, but when person decides to get married, they are in fact aggreeing that there will be hard times, and that they will help each other get through them. a person’s love for another should not be conditional. If you ever truly loved your spouse, you may feel victimized, you may feel angry, you may feel hatred for what your spouse did, but, as hard as it can be a lot of times, you must also be willing to work through things, if at all possible.
Perhaps this is pushing things to an extreme, but I sometimes think that our traditions for how we show a marriage should be made more permanent. Something like a marriage tattoo, brand, or as macabre as it sounds, doing something like Van Gogh, and giving each other a body part, a finger, ear, nose, something that would reduce your physical attractiveness to others, but should not affect your love for each other, because you both understand that you made this sacrifice for each other.
I’m not sure who on the thread said that divorced priests should not be clergy, I may have missed that part… my point at least was that this must surely have an effect on how they demonstrate marriage to those they minister to.now to answer the question about weather someone who has been divorced can be part of the clergy.
I can understand the question and maybe some shouldn’t be clergy.
But could we make that assertion of all. one could argue that a person who has never been married should never advise a couple on how to be married, for how could he/she have any understanding or experience in such matters. how absurd.
Awesome! You’re absolutely right. Obviously, you were in situation that you felt blessed and then things went awry. Read up on the Catholic position of annulments…I think you’ll find grace, charity and hope.There must be some allowance of grace for the victim in a divorce. My observation within the church community is that most divorces are a result of one party falling into sin or deceit and walking away from their vows. Was certainly the case with myself and my second wife.
Why should we be punished or denied opportunities when the divorce was no fault of ours? And yes, this question is equally valid with regard to clergy.