Remarriage and Leaving the Church

[markomalley]

On the teaching of marriage and adultery, I am not in dissent. I am merely saying that a tribunal can be wrong, and a tribunal is NOT “the Church”.

Well, if the tribunal is wrong, then you appeal it.

But, you also have to remember that the presumption always is that the marriage was valid.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

So if you want the marriage bond to be declared null, you must prove that it did not, in fact, exist.

 

[davidv]

If the tribunal fails to judge correctly, thus refusing a decree of nullity, thus refusing the person the right to enter into what would actually be a perfectly valid marriage with another individual, then I see no grave sin in marrying in another Church as a result of being refused justice in the Catholic Church.

How would you know they judged incorrectly? The evidence they collect is private and confidential. If the parties in question don’t like the judgement they can appeal to the Vatican. Why is this so hard to accept?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

So then, you are clearly in dissent.

You can throw that word around all you want Catharina, but my position remains the same, which is that if the tribunal judges incorrectly and a marriage is in fact invalid, then one is not committing adultery by dating someone else. This is a fact.

I love the Church and I think they do the best they can given the information available to them. That being said, whether a marriage is valid or invalid is not a fact that changes with the judgement of a tribunal…if that were so, then an annulment really WOULD be a Catholic divorce, which we all know is not the case.

 

[catharina]

You can throw that word around all you want Catharina, but my position remains the same, which is that if the tribunal judges incorrectly and a marriage is in fact invalid, then one is not committing adultery by dating someone else. This is a fact.

I love the Church and I think they do the best they can given the information available to them. That being said, whether a marriage is valid or invalid is not a fact that changes with the judgement of a tribunal…if that were so, then an annulment really WOULD be a Catholic divorce, which we all know is not the case.

How about you pay attention to the posts by
markomalley,
veradicere and
davidv.

Forget about me.

It’s clear that you are inventing your own religion.
Can’t you see that?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

How about you pay attention to the posts by
markomalley,
veradicere and
davidv.

Forget about me.

It’s clear that you are inventing your own religion.A
Can’t you see that?

Tell me where I am wrong here:

1.)If you are not married, you cannot commit the sin of adultery.

2.)A marriage is either valid or invalid from the time the vows are spoken. It is not MADE invalid at a later date.

3.)The tribunal does not, nor CAN it cause a marriage to be made valid or invalid. That has already been determined long before the tribunal receives the case.

 

[catharina]

Tell me where I am wrong here:

1.)If you are not married, you cannot commit the sin of adultery. Unless the other is married, of course.

2.)A marriage is either valid or invalid from the time the vows are spoken. It is not MADE invalid at a later date. Yet the determination of validity is made by a Tribunal at a later date. It is NOT made by you - EVER.

3.)The tribunal does not, nor CAN it cause a marriage to be made valid or invalid. That has already been determined long before the tribunal receives the case.

Yet it is the determination of the Tribunal that is lawful - NOT your best guess.

How simple is that? VERY SIMPLE.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

How would you know they judged incorrectly? The evidence they collect is private and confidential. If the parties in question don’t like the judgement they can appeal to the Vatican. Why is this so hard to accept?

Like I said, if I have personal information that the man I married is and always has been a child murderer and I knew nothing about it, then that marriage is most certainly invalid. If the tribunal does not have said evidence and believes that I am lying because of things my husband and/or children might have said to skew their judgement, this does not affect the invalidity of my marriage. Whether the tribunal can see it or no, I would know without a shadow of a doubt, that my marriage was not a valid one. Romes opinion, based on incomplete facts, lies, subterfuge, etc. does not, CAN not change that fact. I would have information that they were lacking in this scenario. It doesn’t take a canon lawyer to see that the marriage would not be a valid one.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

How simple is that? VERY SIMPLE.

Are you saying that the tribunals have never been wrong in their “determination”?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Tell me where I am wrong here:

1.)If you are not married, you cannot commit the sin of adultery.

2.)A marriage is either valid or invalid from the time the vows are spoken. It is not MADE invalid at a later date.

3.)The tribunal does not, nor CAN it cause a marriage to be made valid or invalid. That has already been determined long before the tribunal receives the case.

You need to look at this:

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Hope that helps.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

And as I said, we are not required to obey unjust laws. If a person has bribed a tribunal (as I’m sure has been done in the past) or the tribunal simply does not possess the adequate information regarding a clearly invalid marriage (such as the one above) then one is NOT committing adultery by dating or remarrying. At the most, you could argue disobedience and fornication, although those are weak arguments at best in a case where justice has clearly been denied.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

You need to look at this:

Hope that helps.

If someone knows FOR A FACT that their marriage is invalid, if the tribunal were to say to them “Just show us where the bodies are that your husband has been hiding and we will grant your decree”, and the bodies are not to be found because he has moved them, then they are not committing adultery if they behave as if they are not married because they ARE NOT MARRIED. An annulment is not a Catholic divorce.

I will of course concede that they broke canon law

 

[Gertabelle]

OK so you would remain single and celibate if your spouse divorced you? Lets say you wanted to stay in the marriage but your spouse left you for someone else. I can relate to staying single and celibate because I have no desire to date but for those who do like being married, I feel bad for them who had to divorce through no fault of their own. I’m sorry but I do feel sympathy for them

My ex-husband wanted the divorce, and I had no recourse in a state with “no-fault” divorce. But I had also just returned to the Catholic Church when he decided on divorce, and I knew that our “marriage” was null to begin with because we were married outside the Church.

Through no fault of my own I am now a single mom. I hate it. I am actually free to marry in the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t give me the freedom to treat men as objects to fulfill my emotional and physical needs. If God wills it, I will marry again (it’s been over four years since the decree of nullity, and I have yet to even hold a man’s hand, let alone enter a courtship).

My point here is that having the freedom to marry in the Church does not mean that God is calling one to marriage. But the lack of freedom to marry in the Church is a pretty clear indication that God is saying “no” to that option – one must search elsewhere for His will, and not search for a way to go against His will.

If the tribunal fails to judge correctly, thus refusing a decree of nullity, thus refusing the person the right to enter into what would actually be a perfectly valid marriage with another individual, then I see no grave sin in marrying in another Church as a result of being refused justice in the Catholic Church.

Being married is a vocation, not a hobby or something to do to make us feel better. One will not die from being single or from being celibate.

The major flaw I see with your whole argument has nothing to do with the Tribunal and it’s correct or incorrect judgments. The flaw is with your view of obedience. We are called to obedience to God’s will. If God closes the door to the vocation of marriage through a Tribunal decision – we can discern that it is God’s will for us to remain single, regardless of the sense of entitlement engrained in us through society (like contemporary society has such a great grasp of the sacrament of marriage – NOT).

You can throw that word around all you want Catharina, but my position remains the same, which is that if the tribunal judges incorrectly and a marriage is in fact invalid, then one is not committing adultery by dating someone else. This is a fact.

I love the Church and I think they do the best they can given the information available to them. That being said, whether a marriage is valid or invalid is not a fact that changes with the judgement of a tribunal…if that were so, then an annulment really WOULD be a Catholic divorce, which we all know is not the case.

You are right – I was never in a sacramental marriage, and the Tribunal only confirmed what I already knew. Evenso, out of obedience, I was not free to date until I had that declaration of nullity in hand. To do otherwise would have been a slap in God’s face, and completely disobedient to the teachings of His Church.

Jesus Himself said that we show our love for Him by keeping His commands – obedience. It is a narrow road, and few take it. But having been on the other side (going by what I feel is right, regardless of Church teaching) I can honestly say I prefer single and celibate over doing what I’m sure “God doesn’t mind.”

Gertie

 

[catharina]

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore,
in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld
until the contrary is proven.

Good luck with an attitude that says “oops - I broke Canon Law.”
Like oops - guess I’ll decide this is not sin FOR ME.

 

[catharina]

My ex-husband wanted the divorce, and I had no recourse in a state with “no-fault” divorce. But I had also just returned to the Catholic Church when he decided on divorce, and I knew that our “marriage” was null to begin with because we were married outside the Church.

Through no fault of my own I am now a single mom. I hate it. I am actually free to marry in the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t give me the freedom to treat men as objects to fulfill my emotional and physical needs. If God wills it, I will marry again (it’s been over four years since the decree of nullity, and I have yet to even hold a man’s hand, let alone enter a courtship).

My point here is that having the freedom to marry in the Church does not mean that God is calling one to marriage. But the lack of freedom to marry in the Church is a pretty clear indication that God is saying “no” to that option – one must search elsewhere for His will, and not search for a way to go against His will.

Being married is a vocation, not a hobby or something to do to make us feel better. One will not die from being single or from being celibate.

The major flaw I see with your whole argument has nothing to do with the Tribunal and it’s correct or incorrect judgments. The flaw is with your view of obedience. We are called to obedience to God’s will. If God closes the door to the vocation of marriage through a Tribunal decision – we can discern that it is God’s will for us to remain single, regardless of the sense of entitlement engrained in us through society (like contemporary society has such a great grasp of the sacrament of marriage – NOT).

You are right – I was never in a sacramental marriage, and the Tribunal only confirmed what I already knew. Evenso, out of obedience, I was not free to date until I had that declaration of nullity in hand. To do otherwise would have been a slap in God’s face, and completely disobedient to the teachings of His Church.

Jesus Himself said that we show our love for Him by keeping His commands – obedience. It is a narrow road, and few take it. But having been on the other side (going by what I feel is right, regardless of Church teaching) I can honestly say I prefer single and celibate over doing what I’m sure “God doesn’t mind.”

Gertie

Beautiful post. Thanks. God bless you.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

My ex-husband wanted the divorce, and I had no recourse in a state with “no-fault” divorce. But I had also just returned to the Catholic Church when he decided on divorce, and I knew that our “marriage” was null to begin with because we were married outside the Church.

Through no fault of my own I am now a single mom. I hate it. I am actually free to marry in the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t give me the freedom to treat men as objects to fulfill my emotional and physical needs. If God wills it, I will marry again (it’s been over four years since the decree of nullity, and I have yet to even hold a man’s hand, let alone enter a courtship).

My point here is that having the freedom to marry in the Church does not mean that God is calling one to marriage. But the lack of freedom to marry in the Church is a pretty clear indication that God is saying “no” to that option – one must search elsewhere for His will, and not search for a way to go against His will.

Being married is a vocation, not a hobby or something to do to make us feel better. One will not die from being single or from being celibate.

The major flaw I see with your whole argument has nothing to do with the Tribunal and it’s correct or incorrect judgments. The flaw is with your view of obedience. We are called to obedience to God’s will. If God closes the door to the vocation of marriage through a Tribunal decision – we can discern that it is God’s will for us to remain single, regardless of the sense of entitlement engrained in us through society (like contemporary society has such a great grasp of the sacrament of marriage – NOT).

You are right – I was never in a sacramental marriage, and the Tribunal only confirmed what I already knew. Evenso, out of obedience, I was not free to date until I had that declaration of nullity in hand. To do otherwise would have been a slap in God’s face, and completely disobedient to the teachings of His Church.

Jesus Himself said that we show our love for Him by keeping His commands – obedience. It is a narrow road, and few take it. But having been on the other side (going by what I feel is right, regardless of Church teaching) I can honestly say I prefer single and celibate over doing what I’m sure “God doesn’t mind.”

Gertie

Excuse me, but I never said marriage was a “hobby”. The fact is that a tribunal refusing an annulment is not the same thing as God telling someone not to remarry. Fallible men often do make mistakes as a result of free will and human limitations.

I’m sure that historically, annulments were granted or denied based upon bribery or political influence. Was that God making a statement about a couple’s state in life, or was it a corrupt system leveraging for power and money? I think the answer is clear. Just because someone from the Church says something or decides something doesn’t mean it comes straight from the lips of Christ. We know this by simply listening to the conflicts many priests have amongst themselves.

 

[joanofarc2008]

My ex-husband wanted the divorce, and I had no recourse in a state with “no-fault” divorce. But I had also just returned to the Catholic Church when he decided on divorce, and I knew that our “marriage” was null to begin with because we were married outside the Church.

Through no fault of my own I am now a single mom. I hate it. I am actually free to marry in the Catholic Church, but that doesn’t give me the freedom to treat men as objects to fulfill my emotional and physical needs. If God wills it, I will marry again (it’s been over four years since the decree of nullity, and I have yet to even hold a man’s hand, let alone enter a courtship).

My point here is that having the freedom to marry in the Church does not mean that God is calling one to marriage. But the lack of freedom to marry in the Church is a pretty clear indication that God is saying “no” to that option – one must search elsewhere for His will, and not search for a way to go against His will.

Being married is a vocation, not a hobby or something to do to make us feel better. One will not die from being single or from being celibate.

The major flaw I see with your whole argument has nothing to do with the Tribunal and it’s correct or incorrect judgments. The flaw is with your view of obedience. We are called to obedience to God’s will. If God closes the door to the vocation of marriage through a Tribunal decision – we can discern that it is God’s will for us to remain single, regardless of the sense of entitlement engrained in us through society (like contemporary society has such a great grasp of the sacrament of marriage – NOT).

You are right – I was never in a sacramental marriage, and the Tribunal only confirmed what I already knew. Evenso, out of obedience, I was not free to date until I had that declaration of nullity in hand. To do otherwise would have been a slap in God’s face, and completely disobedient to the teachings of His Church.

Jesus Himself said that we show our love for Him by keeping His commands – obedience. It is a narrow road, and few take it. But having been on the other side (going by what I feel is right, regardless of Church teaching) I can honestly say I prefer single and celibate over doing what I’m sure “God doesn’t mind.”

Gertie

 

[Thoughtfulone]

By the way, just to be clear here, if anything, I think the tribunals probably give out too MANY annulments. I am arguing about the weaknesses of the process itself here and how the decision of the tribunal actually has no bearing on the validity of a marriage.

 

[Sillara]

Apparently Jesus gives us one chance at a valid marriage and for our sake it better work out or we will spend the rest of our lives single and celibate whether we like it or not.

Yes. It is a difficult thing, of course, but no one said that living out one’s vocation was easy.

However, in the past when there society aided marriage instead of working against it, there was much less opportunity for this abandonment to happen.

 

[catharina]

Yes. It is a difficult thing, of course, but no one said that living out one’s vocation was easy.

However, in the past when there society aided marriage instead of working against it, there was much less opportunity for this abandonment to happen.

Wow - so very true!

 

[markomalley]

By the way, just to be clear here, if anything, I think the tribunals probably give out too MANY annulments. I am arguing about the weaknesses of the process itself here and how the decision of the tribunal actually has no bearing on the validity of a marriage.

I agree that far too many annulments are given out. And there are very suspicious circumstances in too many of the very high profile cases.

But is that more a fault of the marriage preparation process (where they are too lax in checking for impediments and in assuring that sufficient knowledge is present to assure full consent) or is that a fault of the tribunal process (where they discover that impediments did, in fact, exist or that consent was not fully given in assessing that the marriage was not valid)?