Remarry?

[expectthebest]

I know from experience that the late JPII, even though he was alarmed at the number of annullments granted by U.S. Diocesan tribunals, leaned in favor of a decree of nullity in cases of physical spousal abuse, even if that abuse was not evident at the time of marriage. How that applies to individual and how diocesan tribunals take that idea into account only the tribunals know. But it is a vein of thought that is operative in the Church.

Marriages are tricky things to judge from the outside. The instance in the OP would suggest that the marriage is valid. But an investigation by a tribunal might find that in one of the parties psychological factors or errors and omissions in either character or emotional makeup would have rendered a marriage null from the beginning. I think probably there have been more that a few decrees of nullity that have been granted for reasons other than the original basis on which the petition was predicated. That can be learned only by going through the process.

No one should stay in a physically abusive relationship. It’s unhealthy. As to the sacramental nature of a given marriage, that can only be determined on a case by case basis. Many of the other posters are correct in the assertion that marriage is indissoluable and some people do “suffer” in a bad but valid marriage. Some people suffer ill health, some mental illness, some abuse by others, and some suffer from too much of everything material that blinds them to a need for God. Everyone has a cross to bear. Crosses come in different forms and different shapes. Bearing one brings that bearer closer to God, if the bearer lets it.

It seems to me that many of the Tribunals are simply looking for a reason, however gray it may be, to say a marriage really wasn’t valid because they know good and well the Church’s postion doesn’t make logical sense. Could Christ really have been talking about all situations or could he have been refering to a situation that context would bring into more clarity? I mean, let’s remember that during that time, a man could get tired of his wife and get rid of her for real cause. The woman would then have no means of feeding herself and would likely either starve or turn to prostitution.

What about my post above with the different Bible translations? One comes from a Catholic Bible and one from Lutheran. Why the difference?

 

[elts1956]

Really? Easy for you to say. Are you saying that there is never a point where the marriage cannot be reconciled?

The more I learn about my faith, the more depressing it becomes. I wish my faith would make me happy.

I am sorry you are having unhappy moments with your faith. Somewhere in my travels in life I was told that “if you can’t be happy right now, right this minute, you will never be happy”. Happiness is much more ephemeral than sorrow. At least it seems that way to me. I know I have the tendency to remember the bad rather than the good. I try to focus on the good and that helps, but not all the time. But in a nutshell, we cannot blame anyone, or anything, other than ourselves, for unhappiness, or happiness. We are in charge of that.

 

[1ke]

Another has “unless the marriage is unlawful” in place of except for sexual immorality. I would assume the Catholic Church interprets it as “unless the marriage is unlawful”. Why the difference in translation and what does this really mean?

The original word is porneia. And, while there may be a condition under which divorce is allowed it does NOT state that remarriage is allowed.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What about Matt 19? I’ve seen different interpretations. One is the following:

Jesus] said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
Matthew 19, 8-9

Another has “unless the marriage is unlawful” in place of except for sexual immorality. I would assume the Catholic Church interprets it as “unless the marriage is unlawful”. Why the difference in translation and what does this really mean?

The second is the more accurate translation of the original, Also because the first innacurate one tend to be read as also including, cheating and adultery during the marriage in modern language.

 

[Kay_Cee]

It seems to me that many of the Tribunals are simply looking for a reason, however gray it may be, to say a marriage really wasn’t valid because they know good and well the Church’s postion doesn’t make logical sense.

I have to disagree with this. The Church’s position makes completely logical sense.

If a convenant exists from the moment the marriage is entered into, that covenant cannot be dissolved except by death. Consider the marriage vows one swears to God: *for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part. **That’s what you’re vowing to God! ***So, to come back later and say, “Well, it got worse. It got very, very bad, so I should be allowed an annulment.” is absurd. It’s essentially saying, “I didn’t mean those vows” or “I wish now, at this later date, to add conditions to those vows that didn’t exist when I made them.”

Now, if the marriage vows went something like this: *for better, for worse–unless it gets really bad–for richer, for poorer–unless we go broke–,in sickness–unless my spouse is too much trouble to take care of, in health, until things get very bad do we part, *then one would have a case for annulment under other conditions.

But when one takes marriage vows, he is making a commitment as those vows are worded, not just to his spouse, but to God Almightly. Has anybody stopped to consider how absurd it is for a man to break the vows he has already sworn to one woman by the action of swearing those very same vows to another woman? As Chesterton spoke of those who wish to have one spouse after another in* The Superstition of Divorce*, “The broad-minded are extremely bitter because a Christian who wishes to have several wives when his own promise bound him to one, is not allowed to violate his vow at the same altar at which he made it.”

The Church says that when you make a vow to God to enter into a covenant that is dissolvable only by death that you have actually made a vow to enter into a covenant that is dissolvable only by death. I don’t see how anybody can get more logical than that.

If members of a tribunal grant an annulment when they know a covenant exists, that is on their heads, and unless they repent and confess such a grievous sin, they will have to stand before God and suffer the consequences of it.

 

[SwizzleStick]

To the OP, the answer to your question in a word is, no.

Others have done a very nice job in answering your question, but I just wanted to support them.

A marriage that is valid cannot be dissolved. Ever. Except by death. However, one may choose to separate from an abusive spouse if that is the only safe path for them (or even choose a civil divorce, I think?), but they are still married to their spouse in the eyes of the Church. Even if they separate or divorce, they are still not free to remarry if the marriage is valid from the beginning. The spouse who decides to ignore their original wedding vows made during a valid marriage and “remarry” after a civil divorce will have to later answer to God for their actions as to why they chose to commit adultery.

 

[expectthebest]

The original word is porneia. And, while there may be a condition under which divorce is allowed it does NOT state that remarriage is allowed.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp

The “unless” was telling us when it would not be adultury. Therefore, if there is no adultury, remarriage would abviously be ok.

 

[FCEGM]

The “unless” was telling us when it would not be adultury. Therefore, if there is no adultury, remarriage would abviously be ok.

No, because “porneia” indicates an illicit “marriage”, thus not a marriage at all; so there would be no “remarriage” since there was no marriage to begin with. Our Lord is speaking here of those who have engaged in an already illicit (both morally and legally) “marriage.” Therefore, for such couples to “divorce” is allowed since they are not actually married in the first place.

 

[expectthebest]

No, because “porneia” indicates an illicit “marriage”, thus not a marriage at all; so there would be no “remarriage” since there was no marriage to begin with. Our Lord is speaking here of those who have engaged in an already illicit (both morally and legally) “marriage.” Therefore, for such couples to “divorce” is allowed since they are not actually married in the first place.

My understanding of the word illicit does not necessarily mean none at all. For example, an Mass can be illicit if a priest does not say the Mass correctly, but, if certain basic things are still correct in the Mass, it is still considered a valid Mass. Basically, illicit does not mean invalid. Something can be illicit and still ultimately valid.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My understanding of the word illicit does not necessarily mean none at all. For example, an Mass can be illicit if a priest does not say the Mass correctly, but, if certain basic things are still correct in the Mass, it is still considered a valid Mass. Basically, illicit does not mean invalid. Something can be illicit and still ultimately valid.

Illicit generally means “not according to the Law” or “un-lawful.” Therefore under certain conditions it can also include “illegal” and “invalid”. but not always.

 

[expectthebest]

To the OP, the answer to your question in a word is, no.

Others have done a very nice job in answering your question, but I just wanted to support them.

A marriage that is valid cannot be dissolved. Ever. Except by death. However, one may choose to separate from an abusive spouse if that is the only safe path for them (or even choose a civil divorce, I think?), but they are still married to their spouse in the eyes of the Church. Even if they separate or divorce, they are still not free to remarry if the marriage is valid from the beginning. The spouse who decides to ignore their original wedding vows made during a valid marriage and “remarry” after a civil divorce will have to later answer to God for their actions as to why they chose to commit adultery.

A couple questions:

Why does “death” magically disolve a marriage while complete corruption of the vows by one of the spouses does not? If one spouse goes against his vows in a serious way, hasn’t the convenant been broken?

How is it logical in any way to say that the spouse who is left behind must spend a lifetime of lonliness a sorrow? Oh but the other spouse will answer to God. Is that supposed to be comforting?

 

[SwizzleStick]

A couple questions:

Why does “death” magically disolve a marriage while complete corruption of the vows by one of the spouses does not? If one spouse goes against his vows in a serious way, hasn’t the convenant been broken?

How is it logical in any way to say that the spouse who is left behind must spend a lifetime of lonliness a sorrow? Oh but the other spouse will answer to God. Is that supposed to be comforting?

I believe that is what the Church teaches. As with anything, I am free to accept the teachings of Holy Mother Church or reject them. I choose to accept them. That is not always easy, but nobody ever said that would be the case. In fact, I think there is something somewhere about taking up a cross (and each of us has our own) and following Someone…

 

[Kay_Cee]

A couple questions:

Why does “death” magically disolve a marriage while complete corruption of the vows by one of the spouses does not? If one spouse goes against his vows in a serious way, hasn’t the convenant been broken?

How is it logical in any way to say that the spouse who is left behind must spend a lifetime of lonliness a sorrow? Oh but the other spouse will answer to God. Is that supposed to be comforting?

Please see post #24.

But to go into more detail:

Death does not “magically” dissolve a marriage. There’s nothing magical about it. The original argreement was that the marriage ended at the death of one of the spouses.

As for your second question, it is infinitely better to suffer a lifetime of lonliness than to break a vow made to Almighty God. Or are you going to argue that lonliness is a justification for breaking vows? (If it is, then a man who feels lonely in a marriage should be allowed to break his vows to his wife.) And if we’re allowed to break vows, doesn’t that render vows pretty much meaningless? (Yes, God, I did say “For better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part” but it doesn’t really mean “for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.”)

Besides, God said, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” (Matthew 5:5) I trust in that, don’t you?

 

[expectthebest]

The more I read and learn, the more I see that Scripture tends to support never being able to remarry no matter how bad things become. This is very hard for me to understand. It seems that if one spouse abuses the other, the covenant has been broken. The vows would therefore become void since there is no covenant left to hold them too.

Besides, God said, “Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.” (Matthew 5:5) I trust in that, don’t you?

To use that passage in this context, one would have to logically follow that in order to be comforted we should be in a constant state of mourning and we should strive to be in that state. Obviously, this does not make sense. What God is saying here is for the mournful to not fall in dispair becasue God will be there fore you. It does not mean we should put ourselves in mournful situations in order to feel comfort.

 

[Kay_Cee]

The more I read and learn, the more I see that Scripture tends to support never being able to remarry no matter how bad things become. This is very hard for me to understand. It seems that if one spouse abuses the other, the covenant has been broken. The vows would therefore become void since there is no covenant left to hold them too.

So sin can break covenants established by God? Doesn’t that make sin more powerful than God?

To use that passage in this context, one would have to logically follow that in order to be comforted we should be in a constant state of mourning and we should strive to be in that state. Obviously, this does not make sense. What God is saying here is for the mournful to not fall in dispair becasue God will be there fore you. It does not mean we should put ourselves in mournful situations in order to feel comfort.

Huh? Where does the passage say *only *those who mourn will be comforted? Where does it say one should strive to be mourning? It says those who do mourn are blessed and will be comforted.

The more I read your posts, the more I think you’re looking for an excuse to remarry. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m not going to tell you it’s okay to break the vows you made to God. I care far too much about you to tell you that. It is not okay to break those vows under any circumstances whatsoever.

Is it okay to break other vows to God because you’re lonely and hurting? Would it be okay to swear on a witness stand that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but then lie because telling the truth would mean you’d be lonely and hurting?

 

[1ke]

Why does “death” magically disolve a marriage while complete corruption of the vows by one of the spouses does not?

The Sacraments apply only to the living. In Scripture, Christ tells us there is no marriage in heaven. We are like the angels.

If one spouse goes against his vows in a serious way, hasn’t the convenant been broken?

No.

How is it logical in any way to say that the spouse who is left behind must spend a lifetime of lonliness a sorrow?

You AGAIN presume that single equates to lonliness and sorrow. This does not have to be the case.

And, again, the spouse who is left behind must unite their suffering to that of Christ. They are married. Period.

Oh but the other spouse will answer to God. Is that supposed to be comforting?

No, it should be quite frightening. Judgment Day will not be a pretty sight for most of us.

 

[expectthebest]

So sin can break covenants established by God? Doesn’t that make sin more powerful than God?

Huh? Where does the passage say *only *those who mourn will be comforted? Where does it say one should strive to be mourning? It says those who do mourn are blessed and will be comforted.

The more I read your posts, the more I think you’re looking for an excuse to remarry. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) I’m not going to tell you it’s okay to break the vows you made to God. I care far too much about you to tell you that. It is not okay to break those vows under any circumstances whatsoever.

Is it okay to break other vows to God because you’re lonely and hurting? Would it be okay to swear on a witness stand that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but then lie because telling the truth would mean you’d be lonely and hurting?

Nope, I’m happily married. Just trying to get to the bottom of something which makes no logical sense.

By the way, does anyone know when marriage officially became a Sacrament?

 

[expectthebest]

The Sacraments apply only to the living. In Scripture, Christ tells us there is no marriage in heaven. We are like the angels.

No.

You AGAIN presume that single equates to lonliness and sorrow. This does not have to be the case.

And, again, the spouse who is left behind must unite their suffering to that of Christ. They are married. Period.

No, it should be quite frightening. Judgment Day will not be a pretty sight for most of us.

Of course judgment day should be frightening to a sinner. My question was how that should be of any comfort whatsoever to the person left by the sinner.

You AGAIN presume that single equates to lonliness and sorrow. This does not have to be the case.

I guess it depends what kind of person you are and what God had planned for you. Some people do very well alone and are not suited for marriage. Some people are suited for marriage and do very poorly alone. For the latter, being left without a spouse or any real hope of ever having one would be a terrible thing.

The fact the the Church teaches that a spouse can be beat to a bloody pulp and can’t leave and find true love in a good marriage is a hard one to take. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying that it isn’t true, I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense.

 

[1ke]

Of course judgment day should be frightening to a sinner. My question was how that should be of any comfort whatsoever to the person left by the sinner.

Of course it should be of comfort to those who are faithful to the Lord. You are either a sheep or a goat. The faithful will inherit eternal life.

I guess it depends what kind of person you are and what God had planned for you. Some people do very well alone and are not suited for marriage. Some people are suited for marriage and do very poorly alone. For the latter, being left without a spouse or any real hope of ever having one would be a terrible thing.

God can provide all the comfort they need through the practice of the Virtues.

The fact the the Church teaches that a spouse can be beat to a bloody pulp and can’t leave

The Church does not teach that a person who is being physically abused cannot leave the situation.

and find true love in a good marriage is a hard one to take. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m not saying that it isn’t true, I’m just saying it doesn’t make sense.

They are already married. The Church can only teach the Truth. Christ established the Sacraments and the Church cannot change them.

 

[1ke]

By the way, does anyone know when marriage officially became a Sacrament?

Christ established all seven Sacraments during his earthly ministry.