R
rick43235
Guest
I have to admit that I’ve never heard this before. Do you have a scriptural reference for Jesus establishing annulments?
- Status
R
rick43235
Guest
So, I guess the answer to my question about a scriptural reference would “no?”Jesus established a Church, He gave her protection.
She has the power to investigate a marriage to see if it was real, if it was valid.
As Jesus said that one can only remarry after divorce if the marriage was invalid. Granted, many translations of the Bible inaccurately translate that word and say “adultery” or “fornication”. CCC below, bold added.
[1650](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1650.htm’)
Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"160 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was**. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
A church certainly has the right to establish rules for it’s members to live by. But at least be honest about the fact that that’s what it is…a church rule. Annulments were not established by Jesus.
Regarding the many inaccurate translations of the Bible - how do you know that the one you’re relying on isn’t the wrong one?
K
kage_ar
Guest
Because I can rely on the Church that Jesus protects from error.
R
rick43235
Guest
Just to be clear…you’re saying that the Church’s translation is the correct one, because the Church says so?
Translation errors aside, where in scripture (using any translation you desire) does Jesus establish the annulment of marriages?
R
rick43235
Guest
Yes, I understand that the Catholic Church is not a Bible only church, and I am aware of the concept of Sacred Tradition (although maybe I don’t understand Sacred Tradition as well as I should.) In his post above, Aaron I. stated
Since the concept of annulments does not seem to come from scripture, I’m assuming that it comes from Sacred Tradition - that is, it comes from the Catholic Church, making it a “Catholic rule.”
Now, maybe this is where my less-than-perfect understanding of Sacred Tradition comes into play. According to Catholic teaching, is Sacred Tradition considered to be on “equal footing” with Sacred Scripture? Where does Sacred Tradition come from?
Thanks for stepping in here.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Annulment is not a Doctrine, Dogma or Teaching of the Catholic Church, it is not part of the Deposit of Faith. It is a legal procedure or process within the Church under Canon Law to investigate primarily, the validity of a Sacrament when the validity is called into question.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Or more likely he said he allowed for Divorce in cases of unchastity.
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007bt.asp
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
An anulment is not a divorce. A person with an anulment is not remarrying.
An anulment means that there was no sacramental marriage so there was no marriage.
C
chrisman27
Guest
The book of MARK chapter 10 and especially verses 6 -9 make it clear
that Jesus believed in the permanency of marriage.
Something, the annulment tribunals should take into consideration, when they
issue over 60,000 annulments annually. And that is probably a conservative number.
that Jesus believed in the permanency of marriage.
Something, the annulment tribunals should take into consideration, when they
issue over 60,000 annulments annually. And that is probably a conservative number.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You have a misunderstanding of what a decree of nullity is. This decree states that there was never a marriage in the first place so it is not affected by Jesus’ statements on the permanency of marriage.
For me to take your number of annulments granted I would need to see a source.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
I’ve read that the rate of decrees of nullity granted in American is way more than in other countries throughout the world. The problem in America is so great that the Vatican seems to think some hanky panky is going on because twice from what I heard the Vatican threatened to take over the tribunals in Rome.
I believe that decrees of nullity are valid. However, I also believe that there are probably far too many being “discovered” that really aren’t which makes Catholics in American make all of us look like fools. Is this a heresy? I strongly suspect that there is something going on that shouldn’t be happening. But that’s just my opinion and quite judgmental in my opinion as well. But that’s my true blue feelings about it. But it is not up to me to make the determination. The bishops that pass on to eternity will have much to answer for one day. We should pray for them and all those involved in the process.
O
otjm
Guest
Not all issues require a scriptural reference. However, there are two recognized issues concerning marriage in scripture; one is called the Pauline Privilege (from St Paul) and the other the Petrine privilege. Both are from scripture.
In addition, we belive that Christ gave us all 7 of what we recognize as sacraments; however, he did not lay out each and every last little bit about them. He did, on the other hand, give the Church authority to bind and to loose, and from that authority - which the Church recognizes as the ability to set up rules and determine those rules - the Church has the power to determine what a sacrament is and what it is not. For example, the Church has the power to say what causes or creates (confects) a Baptism; it is water and what is called the Triune formula - “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
The Church also ha the power then to say that baptizing with oil, or with Coca Cola, is not a baptism; and that using water but saying “I baptize you in the name of the Creator, and the Redeemer, and the Sanctifyer” is not a baptism.
Llacking that authority, or failing to exercise that authority leads to total chaos - when is someone baptized? When are they not? With no rules and parameters, we are all out in the dark.
Likewise, in looking at what a marriage is, the Church looks to scripture, but not for a literal set. Marriage is a covenant, and the OT and the NT are repleate with covenentual terms and circustances. And so the Church has looked at what marriage means, and has found that there are circumstances and situations where there is not the requisite intent to marry permanently; these are grounds for finding that there was no sacrament confected (which is different than saying that there was no marriage in the eyes of the State).
A good deal of the confusion comes in when we confuse what the Church says “There was no sacrament” with what people - your neighbors, your kids, your IRS agent, the county clerk and others - call a marriage. The State does not refer to sacraments. It could not care less. It refers to contracts, and finds marriage to be a contract over which the State has some control. The State can also determine for State purposes that the contract can be broken.
The Church does not refer to a contract, and says that a covenant can not be broken; but it can say a covenant was not made. And the Church does not get into issues of contract, because it does not consider marriage to be a contract.
Hope that helps.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
aaa
C
chrisman27
Guest
I posted on here a source regarding the annulments being over 60,000.
google it…it is out there.
google it…it is out there.
F
FromTheAshes777
Guest
O
otjm
Guest
when people look at a number and do not put it into context, it is easy for errors to be made concerning what that number actaully represents.
To begin with, a number of them have to do with Catholics fialing to follow Church law: they must be married with a priest as the official witness. If they are married by a minister (without specific permission to do so) or a Justice of the Peace or judge, they are not validly married and the decree is automatic.
In addition to this, there are a number of Protestant and other (no faith or non-christian faith) marriages. If the party so marrying did not believe in the permanence of marriage at the time of the marriage, the decree witll be granted; and given that not all Christian Churches have a forthright stand on divorce, it is certainly a greater likelyhood this may be the case.
That leaves the rest of the cases, where two Catholics did not have a sacramental marriage.
It still sounds like a large number. However, given the statistics that are most often not shown or talked about, let’s look at the rest. the statistics and numbers are closer to 50,000, but let’s use 55,000 for a round number. That represents 7% of divorced Catholics.
What is never mentioned is the number of Catholics who start the process but do not receive one: that is 8%, or about 62850.
If 7% have received one, and 8% applied but did not (and this includes all the cases started but not completed - the large majority of those who did not receive one), we have about 667,800 divorced Catholics who have not even applied for a decree of nullity.
Put in that context, 7% of those who married and later divorced receiving a decree is not something that is so skewed; 93% are not receiving one.
O
otjm
Guest
Where ever there is a judgement to be made, it is possible the judgement may be wrong. I have followed the issues concerning decrees, and while I think that Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 are right, I do not think that they necessarily have all the information they might need to make a complete determination.
In other words, it is not particularly a secret that some tribunals have in the past taken a far more “pastoral” approach than a strictly legal one. In short, it has appeared that evidence has been at best weak in some, and perhaps many cases in the past.
It is also true that the comments are not particularly of “last week” origin; Some of the discussion goes back to cases in the 1990’s and late 1980’s, meaning we are talking about cases that are 15 to perhaps 25 years old. As the saying goes, there has been a bit of water over the dam since then; and certainly Canon lawyers have been taking into account the directions of the two popes. And granted that if Canon lawyers are like priests in that they follow the Canon laws as well as the priests follow the rubrics, there has been trouble afoot. On the other hand, there has been a gradual return to following the rubrics in Mass (not everywhere, and not always as close as possible) and so it should be presumed that the tribunals are doing a better job requiring sufficient evidence to make a finding.
However, the other side of the coin is that the US has the vast bulk of cases, and there are numerous issues besides a tribunal not following the law which impact this, and if the tribunals were strict the US would still have the bulk of the cases.
Coupled with this are the statistics of how many Catholics there are who have not received a decree but are divorced. According to CARA (and I have seen no other studies that look at the total picture) only 7% of divorced Catholics have received a decree. It is hard to believe, with catechesis as bad as it has been over the last 40 years (and it is improving, but the damage is already done) that we have vast numbers of Catholics approaching the altar with any real understanding of marriage requirements.
And if you don’t believe that last statement, consider that Catholics have a something like 80% to 90% useage rate of artificial birth control. If they are of a mindset to make their own determination as to ABC, only a fool would argue that they are suddenly going to truly believe that marriage is permanent and that they cannot just get a divorce when it seems best. And if they approach the altar with that mindset - that it is not a permanent union - case made.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Very good post, otjm. My hats off to you.
C
chrisman27
Guest
OTJM
anyone can say that they don’t beleive in the permanence of marriage.
in fact, I bet A LOT of married people would say that !
I believe that Christ wanted people to stay married and work on their
marriage. He never says ANYWHERE in the bible people are allowed to get remarried.
Not one word.
Anyone can say they lack grave judgment on what they were doing, AFTER things don’t work out their way.
Has anyone ever considered spouses who may think they WERE VALIDLY married
and had a liberal tribunal null and void it so the new spouse can marry thier trophy girlfriend or boyfriend?
Why don’t you read Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s book.
It was very good, and made me realize the church is sadly mistaken on annulments.
I would have to see a source that says only 7 percent of divorced catholics receive an annulment. Then they must all be located in my state.
anyone can say that they don’t beleive in the permanence of marriage.
in fact, I bet A LOT of married people would say that !
I believe that Christ wanted people to stay married and work on their
marriage. He never says ANYWHERE in the bible people are allowed to get remarried.
Not one word.
Anyone can say they lack grave judgment on what they were doing, AFTER things don’t work out their way.
Has anyone ever considered spouses who may think they WERE VALIDLY married
and had a liberal tribunal null and void it so the new spouse can marry thier trophy girlfriend or boyfriend?
Why don’t you read Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s book.
It was very good, and made me realize the church is sadly mistaken on annulments.
I would have to see a source that says only 7 percent of divorced catholics receive an annulment. Then they must all be located in my state.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
If you remember one of the Kennedy’s. The wife appealed it to the Vatican and the Vatican reversed the declaration of nullity. Don’t know what happened since. This ought to show you that there are probably many more like this. You are absolutely right and this is why I feel scandalized over it. Protestants look at us like we’re fools. But then again they’re just divorcing and getting married again. So I don’t see how they have any room to wiggle.OTJM
anyone can say that they don’t beleive in the permanence of marriage.
in fact, I bet A LOT of married people would say that !
I believe that Christ wanted people to stay married and work on their
marriage. He never says ANYWHERE in the bible people are allowed to get remarried.
Not one word.
Anyone can say they lack grave judgment on what they were doing, AFTER things don’t work out their way.
Has anyone ever considered spouses who may think they WERE VALIDLY married
and had a liberal tribunal null and void it so the new spouse can marry thier trophy girlfriend or boyfriend?
Why don’t you read Sheila Rauch Kennedy’s book.
It was very good, and made me realize the church is sadly mistaken on annulments.
I would have to see a source that says only 7 percent of divorced catholics receive an annulment. Then they must all be located in my state.
I wonder sometimes if those that obtained declarations of nullity really realize that on the judgment day they will have to give an account, especially if they did anything under the table, so to speak.
My dad had one, but I see now why his might be valid. He was always an overgrown adolescent.- Status