Remarry?

[expectthebest]

If a marriage was valid, is there ever any situation in which a Catholic can remarry, other than death of a spouse?

For example, say two people loved each other and were married in the Church. After years of marriage, one just decides they are tired of being married, forces a civil divorce, and remarries someone else? What happens to the spouse who is without fault?

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

 

[1ke]

If a marriage was valid, is there ever any situation in which a Catholic can remarry, other than death of a spouse?

A marriage that is valid and a sacrament (between two baptized persons) cannot be dissolved by any power.

For example, say two people loved each other and were married in the Church. After years of marriage, one just decides they are tired of being married, forces a civil divorce, and remarries someone else? What happens to the spouse who is without fault?

If the marriage is valid, there can be no remarriage.

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

There can be no remarriage.

You have, however, set up a false dichotomy-- stay and accept the beatings or leave and be “lonely.” The choice would be to leave the dangerous situation. That does NOT mean one would be doomed to a desolate existence. Single does not equal miserable.

We are all called to live according to God’s law, even when it is difficult.

 

[LilyM]

If a marriage was valid, is there ever any situation in which a Catholic can remarry, other than death of a spouse?

For example, say two people loved each other and were married in the Church. After years of marriage, one just decides they are tired of being married, forces a civil divorce, and remarries someone else? What happens to the spouse who is without fault?

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

Marriage is a sacrament - there are THREE parties to it (the most important one being God). To remarry with a spouse still iving and no annulment is an act of infidelity to HIM (breaking the vows you made before Him) as well as to your human spouse.

I’m not married, and being in my mid-30s and never having dated much, chances are statistically pretty high that I never will be. But I’m certainly not lonely, quite the opposite. There are other ways of fostering friendship, sociability and human contact that don’t involve a marital relationship.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If a marriage was valid, is there ever any situation in which a Catholic can remarry, other than death of a spouse?

For example, say two people loved each other and were married in the Church. After years of marriage, one just decides they are tired of being married, forces a civil divorce, and remarries someone else? What happens to the spouse who is without fault?

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

1. No.
2. They can enter the annulment process after being abandoned.
3. They can divorce for safety sake and begin the annulment process.

Only after a Marriage is found to be Null can a Catholic consider another Marriage.

 

[expectthebest]

1. No.
2. They can enter the annulment process after being abandoned.
3. They can divorce for safety sake and begin the annulment process.

Only after a Marriage is found to be Null can a Catholic consider another Marriage.

In this case, the marriage was valid, so there would be no possibility of annulment. Isn’t that correct?

 

[expectthebest]

1. No.
2. They can enter the annulment process after being abandoned.
3. They can divorce for safety sake and begin the annulment process.

Only after a Marriage is found to be Null can a Catholic consider another Marriage.

The premise was that the marriage was originally valid so I guess there would be no reason for starting the annulment process.

 

[expectthebest]

A marriage that is valid and a sacrament (between two baptized persons) cannot be dissolved by any power.

If the marriage is valid, there can be no remarriage.

There can be no remarriage.

You have, however, set up a false dichotomy-- stay and accept the beatings or leave and be “lonely.” The choice would be to leave the dangerous situation. That does NOT mean one would be doomed to a desolate existence. Single does not equal miserable.

We are all called to live according to God’s law, even when it is difficult.

There have been many Catholics throughout the ages that have stayed in an unhappy and even abusive marriage in order to not be alone. I think in terms of real life, there is no false dechotomy on this one.

Surely, Jesus did not mean for us to choose between being alone and staying in a bad marriage? I know this would be a terribly hard decision for me to take. This seems like another example of the Church not being loving and understanding of the trials of regular people. We are not all called to loneliness and celebacy. And to be made to suffer over the actions of another? Where’s the love?

 

[1ke]

There have been many Catholics throughout the ages that have stayed in an unhappy and even abusive marriage in order to not be alone.

That may be true. But, equally many have left such relationships and found contentment, value, and mission in their single state. And, still others (for example St. Rita) have stayed not out of fear of loliness but out of heroic virtue.

I think in terms of real life, there is no false dechotomy on this one.

You are entitled to your assessment, but I disagree. At a minimum you cannot apply this as a universal condition.

Surely, Jesus did not mean for us to choose between being alone and staying in a bad marriage?

Of course not. Abusing a spouse is a serious sin, and Jesus would want that person to be reconciled, live in holiness, and cease their behavior.

I know this would be a terribly hard decision for me to take. This seems like another example of the Church not being loving and understanding of the trials of regular people.

Oh, puleez. This is not a matter of the church being “unloving.” The Church can only teach the truth. The truth is that Christ himself established the Sacrament and its indissoluability. It would be “unloving” for the Church to pretend that remarrying is OK, when in fact it is not.

We are not all called to loneliness and celebacy. And to be made to suffer over the actions of another? Where’s the love?

It’s right up there on the Cross with Jesus, who knows something about suffering for the actions of another.

 

[expectthebest]

That may be true. But, equally many have left such relationships and found contentment, value, and mission in their single state. And, still others (for example St. Rita) have stayed not out of fear of loliness but out of heroic virtue.

There is no way for you to know this.

You are entitled to your assessment, but I disagree. At a minimum you cannot apply this as a universal condition.

Niether can you.

Of course not. Abusing a spouse is a serious sin, and Jesus would want that person to be reconciled, live in holiness, and cease their behavior.

You are changing the subject from the one who was abused and the one who did the abusing here. Of course God wants the sinful person to be reconciled. Duh.

Oh, puleez. This is not a matter of the church being “unloving.” The Church can only teach the truth. The truth is that Christ himself established the Sacrament and its indissoluability. It would be “unloving” for the Church to pretend that remarrying is OK, when in fact it is not.

Scripture is interpreted that way. This interpretation does seem to contradict that God would want us to have a happy life in our calling. Some are called to be married. Some are not. A person who must leave an abusive marriage doesn’t change. They may still be called to be married but through no fault of their own, that has been ripped from them. I can’t help but wonder if this interpretation has something to do with those doing the interpreting. To the higherarchy of the Church, marriage is at best a lower calling than celebacy. So for them, it’s no big deal.

It’s right up there on the Cross with Jesus, who knows something about suffering for the actions of another.

Jesus is our saviour and took our sins upon him and did suffer for us. I didn’t know we were meant to take others sins upon ourselves too. If you make the comparison you did above, this is what you are saying.

 

[1ke]

You are changing the subject from the one who was abused and the one who did the abusing here. Of course God wants the sinful person to be reconciled. Duh.

No, I’m not changing the subject. You missed the point. You asked if Jesus wants us to choose between being alone or staying in a bad marriage. Jesus would choose for the sinner to stop sinning.

Scripture is interpreted that way. This interpretation does seem to contradict that God would want us to have a happy life in our calling.

God wants us to have a happy life in our calling? Hmmm, I wonder how “happy” Peter, Paul, and all the others were in their calling as they were being tortured and killed.

They were very happy, but not in the way you mean. Scripture does not teach us that following Christ will make us “happy” in a temporal or material way. It teaches us that we will have many trials, that even our friends and families may revile us for following Him, but that our eternal happiness is what matters.

Luke 12: 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Romans 5:3 but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

Romans 8:17-18 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

1 Peter 2:19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

Some are called to be married. Some are not. A person who must leave an abusive marriage doesn’t change. They may still be called to be married but through no fault of their own, that has been ripped from them.

They are still called to the vocation of marriage-- THEIR marriage. They are called to witness to that marriage until their own death or that of their spouse.

I can’t help but wonder if this interpretation has something to do with those doing the interpreting. To the higherarchy of the Church, marriage is at best a lower calling than celebacy. So for them, it’s no big deal.

This statement has no basis in fact.

Jesus is our saviour and took our sins upon him and did suffer for us. I didn’t know we were meant to take others sins upon ourselves too. If you make the comparison you did above, this is what you are saying.

Collosians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church

 

[expectthebest]

No, I’m not changing the subject. You missed the point. You asked if Jesus wants us to choose between being alone or staying in a bad marriage. Jesus would choose for the sinner to stop sinning.

No, I didn’t miss your point. Your point is not relevant to the abused person.

God wants us to have a happy life in our calling? Hmmm, I wonder how “happy” Peter, Paul, and all the others were in their calling as they were being tortured and killed.

They were very happy, but not in the way you mean. Scripture does not teach us that following Christ will make us “happy” in a temporal or material way. It teaches us that we will have many trials, that even our friends and families may revile us for following Him, but that our eternal happiness is what matters.

Luke 12: 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

Romans 5:3 but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

Romans 8:17-18 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us.

1 Peter 2:19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

So, God wants us to be unhappy here on earth. The more pain, the better. In fact, we should want to die, pray for death ASAP to get out of this terrible miserable place. Right? Because God did not place us here to be happy in any temperal way. By this thinking, we should all want to die as soon as possible. We shouldn’t thank God when we do have temperal happiness because after all, that’s not why we are here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by expectthebest
I can’t help but wonder if this interpretation has something to do with those doing the interpreting. To the higherarchy of the Church, marriage is at best a lower calling than celebacy. So for them, it’s no big deal.

This statement has no basis in fact.

Do you know that it doesn’t? Are you seriously saying that one’s life experience doesn’t affect Scriptural interpretation at all? I would think this is why the Church only defines very few things infallibly. Has the doctrin on remarriage been officially defined infallibly?

Collosians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church

Surely this verse isn’t saying that Jesus did not suffere enough for all of us and that we must fill in what Jesus didn’t?

 

[1ke]

No, I didn’t miss your point. Your point is not relevant to the abused person.

Certainly it is. The marriage relationship can be healed.

Your solution is to divorce them, move on, and find another.

Christ’s solution is to remain steadfast in our vow, pray and sacrifice on their behalf and bring them to reconciliation (for example St. Rita) and to redemption and salvation.

So, God wants us to be unhappy here on earth. The more pain, the better. In fact, we should want to die, pray for death ASAP to get out of this terrible miserable place. Right? Because God did not place us here to be happy in any temperal way. By this thinking, we should all want to die as soon as possible. We shouldn’t thank God when we do have temperal happiness because after all, that’s not why we are here.

No, in fact the opposite is true. We should rejoice in our sufferings if those sacrifices can help build up the Kingdom (Col 1:24).

Christ did not promise us happiness, wealth, or peace. He promised us salvation. The path to salvation is the Way of the Cross.

What Christ did promise us is the peace that passes all understanding-- the Beatific Vision. Jesus is the source and the end of our joy. True joy is doing the will of the Father. That will often times conflict with our selfish desires for temporal happines and ease.

Christ does not wish pain and suffering on us. However he expects that when others sin through their own free will and create such suffering that we embrace it, unite it to his suffering, and bear it in patience and virtue.

Do you know that it doesn’t? Are you seriously saying that one’s life experience doesn’t affect Scriptural interpretation at all?

I am saying that the Church cannot err and neither “personal interpretation” nor “personal experiences” have anything to do with Church teaching.

I would think this is why the Church only defines very few things infallibly. Has the doctrin on remarriage been officially defined infallibly?

Yes.

Surely this verse isn’t saying that Jesus did not suffere enough for all of us and that we must fill in what Jesus didn’t?

Take it up with Paul.

We are all personally involved in the Redemption of this world and the bringing forth of the Kingdom in a real, actual way. Yes, Christ allows our suffering to have redemptive meaning.

 

[expectthebest]

Certainly it is. The marriage relationship can be healed.

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.

 

[1ke]

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

Through Christ all things are possible.

But, of course people are free to reject Christ’s grace. So, of course there will be times when reconciliation is not possible because one spouse or both refuse to change or 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 experiencing depression in conjunction with the faith. That is not what Christ wants for any of us. Your faith can make you happy:

Romans 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

John 15: 10-12 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

Perhaps you should visit with your priest and share your issues with him.

 

[Kay_Cee]

If a marriage was valid, is there ever any situation in which a Catholic can remarry, other than death of a spouse?

For example, say two people loved each other and were married in the Church. After years of marriage, one just decides they are tired of being married, forces a civil divorce, and remarries someone else? What happens to the spouse who is without fault?

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

Here’s something I posted in another thread some time ago:
Kay Cee:

First, a little background. I’ve been married 18 years and have two children. We are both Catholic and were married in the Catholic Church. We have no grounds for an annulment.

I am blessed with a wonderful marriage, but let’s suppose that changed. Let’s suppose my husband began cheating on me, slapping me around, and then demanded a divorce so he could marry someone else. Let’s further suppose I haven’t done anything wrong–I am the “innocent party.”

Would this be grounds for me to re-marry? Absolutely not!

Here’s why: At our wedding, I stood up before God and *swore a vow that I would be married to him for better or worse, till death do us part. *The fact that it got worse doesn’t undo that vow.

Now, because there was abuse, I might obtain a civil divorce in order to keep myself and my children safe. But that doesn’t undo the covenant we created, one that can be ended only by death. In the eyes of the Church, I would still be married to him.

Unfair? Not at all. I took that vow of my own free will. It’s not okay for me at a later date to violate that vow, especially when I swore to be true to it even if conditions worsened. Furthermore, to allow my husband’s sin to break my vow would be to say that his sin is more powerful than God’s action of joining us together as husband and wife.

Link to the other thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3504258#post3504258

 

[rayne89]

It just amazes me that people assume they know better than God what is best. God created us, he clearly states in the Bible if one leaves his wife (or her husband) and remarries this is adultery. There is no “unless you disagree with this rule” clause.
God created us, He knows what is best for us and yet we (and we all do it at one time or another) choose sin thinking it we know better.
Even in suffering there can be happiness. We are created by God, we don’t get to decide what kind of God we would like or what kind of commandments we think we should follow. We will be happy when we say “Thy will be done.”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The premise was that the marriage was originally valid so I guess there would be no reason for starting the annulment process.

#2 also requires a civil divorce before starting the Annulment process.

If they are absolutely certain that the Marriage was valid, then there might not be a reason to start the annulment process. Unless of course there might be a possibility they might be wrong.

 

[expectthebest]

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?

 

[SarahR]

Here’s something I posted in another thread some time ago:

Link to the other thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3504258#post3504258

Right. I am still responsible TO GOD for the vow I entered into, regardless of whether my husband is unfaithful to our covenant.

 

[joeybaggz]

Or, say there is a valid marriage. Years later, one starts beating the other. Does the beaten spouse have any options other than leaving and living a lonely life or staying and accepting the beatings?

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.