When you say the spouse has the right, I tend to agree with you. However, in this teaching from the catechism I do not find duty. Can you point me to the teaching that says it is a *duty *for one to separate themselves from a spouse that may be percieved to be a threat to them?
Why would they “need to have an annulment granted”? No one receives a decree of nullility because they need it. It is only a possible result of an investigation into the validity of the marriage at the time it was attempted.
You said that he told you that “you were not a wife”. Does this not suggest that you are not married? What else could it mean? How could he say that and not already be telling you that he decided that you were not really married?
Yes. The broader section of applicable Canon law is 1151-1155. This is also referenced in the new Catechism #1649 & 2383, is touched on in Familiaris consortio, and various other places.
“Need” is perhaps too strong a word, but ina situation where it appeared there was little hope of the parties being able to rejoin in conjugal life, there would certainly be sufficient grounds to ask the tribunal to investigate and determine if prior impediments had prevented a sacramental bond from the beginning. It the tribunal returned a positive finding for nullity, the parties would be free to remarry, though usually at least one will have an impediment placed to try to prevent that party from again attempting a marriage likely to be invalid.
It could mean that he was not turning a blind eye to the situation. He was not pretending that things were as they should be and that I should just carry on assuming my marriage was valid. Believe me, that is exactly what I would have done, because it is so much easier to go with what you know, then to let your whole world colapse and let go of all of your hopes. My priest was not in error. He was giving sound pastoral advice. He may very well have decided that I was not really married. I have decided that is the case, but I will still act as if I were married (but remain a safe distance from my husband) until I receive a declaration from a tribunal stating otherwise.
I am glad you now agree that the spouse has the right, as just a few posts ago you were presenting your position as though a spouse did not have such a right in Christian marriage as understood by the Church.
It seems to me (please let me know if I am wrong) that you assume that if two people should not get married, i.e. it would be a mistake if they did, that they will not be able to do so.Hi again, Dan;
a presumed marriage? Can the RCC help us with such situations?? Can u differentiate between that and a marriage that should never have taken place? In other words…would an annulment be conducive in this case? (presumed marriage, I mean)
Sorry…I don’t mean to confuse you, Dan.
It could be. If that was the case, then he made the mistake of a poor choice of words.
Perhaps, but that is not what he said. He told you that you were not a wife, which can only mean that you are not married, and if I understand what you posted, he said that before any official investigation had even been started.
He may have decided. But, telling you that you were not married was obviously an error. The Church does not allow its priests to make this pronouncement under any circumstances.
I understand, and will not take offense if you do decide not to post further.
(Please Lord, help me to remain magnanimous).
Why do you change my meaning? I have consistently stated that this woman has as her primary concern, the protection of her children from physical harm. That is the duty. You have suggested that she also has a duty to separate herself from her husband to protect herself. I asked for your reference in Church teaching that she must do this. My honest conclusion is that you continue to confuse her duty to her kids with what she may do for herself.
My positions are not changing.
You have repeatedly suggested she would be breaking her marriage vows if she did remove herself from harm, when the Church has long held that one’s marriage vows include the right to suspend conjugal life under the circumstances she faced. You have done so in multiple posts in this very thread. In fact, my opening comment to this thread, #69, contained a referenced quote of you making that very same false claim, so I have already pointed out this error in your thinking, and the applicable church teaching as well. If your memory is so faulty that you cannot recall what was one of your consistent claims / implications / positions for more than half of the thread and have difficulty remaining magnanimous when that is pointed out, I would strongly encourage you to see your physician to see if those symptoms might be caused by an underlying medical condition and to avoid these sorts of conversations until you have learned how to compensate for those weaknesses.
If a woman has children, her duties obviously include protecting them and not abandoning them. I am largely addressing what was obvious about this particular situation, not the various "what-if"s you are inventing as you go along about a different woman who was in a different (childless) state of life.
But you are. Not very many posts ago posts ago you were implying she would be breaking her marriage vows if she did not continue to remain in the conjugal life with him, with the concurrent possibility of have more children with him. Now you’ve switched to splitting hairs about whether or not she has a duty for herself alone without consideration of the children (ignoring that her duties to her children cannot be removed from this particular situation). That is indeed a change in the base position from which you are addressing your other points.
This is not the way an honest debate works. I pointed you to Church teaching pointing out the portion of Canon laws and the new Catechism contradicting your previous claim that she would be breaking her vows if she did not remain in conjugal life with him under. I then asked you why you had so long pretended that you were unaware of such obvious Church teaching on the subject if you were as well-researched on this as you had been implying you were as your reason for not backing up any of your own claims with citations to Church teaching. You have studiously avoided this question. In fact, you have established that you are not a trustworthy claimant in regards to either what you imply about Church teaching or even as to what you have said previously yourself in this very thread.
If you wish to speak of the duties of a woman in a similar situation that does not have children, perhaps you need to spell out your conditions in a new thread (after having actually studied the obvious and readily accessible parts of applicable Church teaching which you have established you are generally unfamiliar with) to keep from being tempted to hop around form one case to another as you have been thus far.
I am wondering if perhaps you were raised in a fundamentalist househould, where you were taught a very literal interpretation of language. The problem with going for a purely literal interpretation of the Bible, or even spoken language, is that you only scratch the surface but quite often miss the deeper meaning.
Ray,
You suggest that she cannot both protect her child and remain true to her marital responsibilities. Again, I have no information to make that assumption. The facts that I have seem to indicate otherwise. From the facts of this particular case, the child is in danger only when left alone with the father. Why is it not possible to continue to act as if one is married and simultaneously ensure that this child will not be left alone with their father? It may be inconvenient, but I propose that it is not impossible.
I can understand your view. If I had made the same assumptions that you did about this case, I would reach the same conclusions. My position has not changed. If she is able to protect her child, and is not herself in danger, then she has no licit reason to leave her husband. She has indicated that this is what she believes. For your position to make sense, you have to disagree with her, you must assume that she does not know what she is doing. Perhaps that is so, but I do not know her personally, and can only assume that she has a better understanding of this particular case than I.
I was raised in a Catholic household. I don’t know if that qualifies as fundamentalist or not.
I can accept that he did not mean what he literally said. I just believe that it is unfortunate that words are misused in this way. Words have meanings.
I will admit that I had to look up obdurate. It is not in my vocabulary.
That is quite harsh. I must take such criticism seriously.
actually…I do think that if we discern strongly enough…pray hard enough…no, God will prevent us from making a dreadful mistake. Not talking just normal marriage things…anyone can say a marriage bad…but, truthfully, i mean more in an abusive way…if infidelity is happening over and over…this type of thing. I don’t think God would mislead us…I think what happens, is that people do not seek God enough when choosing a mate. We sometimes choose mates based on frivolous criteria…if we choose a Godly mate…one would think that person would not abuse his/her children. I don’t mean someone who says they are Godly…but someone who truly is.
I hope that your move is a joyful one. My wife and I lived between Orlando and Kissimmee from 1992 to 1995. It was a pleasant time, but Florida was not home for us, and we left.actually…I do think that if we discern strongly enough…pray hard enough…no, God will prevent us from making a dreadful mistake. Not talking just normal marriage things…anyone can say a marriage bad…but, truthfully, i mean more in an abusive way…if infidelity is happening over and over…this type of thing. I don’t think God would mislead us…I think what happens, is that people do not seek God enough when choosing a mate. We sometimes choose mates based on frivolous criteria…if we choose a Godly mate…one would think that person would not abuse his/her children. I don’t mean someone who says they are Godly…but someone who truly is.
Marriage is a vocation…and a gift from God. We must choose our mates wisely, and if there is an IMPEDIMENT to not choosing wisely…the person who is suffering in that horrible marriage, should not have to stay, because they were not able to discern a mate, properly. Hope that makes sense…I’m heading to Florida now, Dan…my family and I are moving. But, I had to get my last word in! haha…kidding…
Blessings, and talk to you all soon,
Sharon
I don’t think that the Church teaches there is an impediment to marriage if one does not chose their spouse wisely.
True…but, one can have an impediment…perhaps, that person didn’t fully understand or know God…at the time of choosing a mate. Found God during the marriage, let’s say…and poof! Now that person regrets his/her decision. I know many friends who have gone through this…and who now through prayer, feel that God never directed them to that person to begin with.
I share the same view of God. He wants what is best for us. However, becuase He is all just, as well as all loving, there are certain things that He will not do.
I have examined the impediments to marriage, and not understanding or knowing God is not one of them.True…but, one can have an impediment…perhaps, that person didn’t fully understand or know God…at the time of choosing a mate. Found God during the marriage, let’s say…and poof! Now that person regrets his/her decision. I know many friends who have gone through this…and who now through prayer, feel that God never directed them to that person to begin with.
I hesitate to judge what God thinks of such situations, because again…if there was ignorance, or an impediment that caused someone to choose the wrong person…I just ‘want’ to believe perhaps, that God would not expect someone to stay in such a place.
Talk to you soon…Dan. Take care. Actually when I was first married, my husband and I lived in Kissimmee…and then in Orlando…I liked neither place. But, Tampa Bay area seems lovely…and through much prayer, we feel this is God’s will.