F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Rather than believing ill of the Church in America and from many people I have run into I think the reason is that Americans are more selfish and immature with a grave misunderstanding of what marriage is.
- Status
E
eucharisteo
Guest
I agree.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and telling them that Moses allowed divorce ‘because of the hardness of your hearts’ but that He was saying that a man and a woman marry and should not be put asunder but that ‘lewd conduct’ is a separate case. . . what exactly does that mean?
Think about it.
What it MEANS is that there were cases in Jesus’ time–just as there are today–where (because of those laws on divorce etc.) there were men and women (Samaritan woman, for example?) who had had ‘more than’ one spouse.
Suppose that you divorced your wife and married another woman. Are you ‘legally’ married to that other woman? Depending on the laws of your secular government perhaps. But are you married by the laws of God? No. If you are still in God’s eyes married to the wife you divorced, then you are committing ‘lewd conduct’ or adultery with the SECOND woman whom you have ‘married’.
So, obviously, in order to comply with God’s laws – right?–you would have to ‘divorce’ that second woman, and go back to your first spouse.
WOULDN’T YOU???
SO --the ‘divorce’ that Jesus permitted is that of a marriage that was not ‘valid’ to begin with, isn’t it???
That ‘second woman’ is ‘legally’ married and so must be legally ‘divorced’. . . and in order to comply with God’s law, that woman must be divorced so that the man return to his first wife, yes??
**Because–keep with me here–even though there appeared to be a good old ‘civil’ and legal marriage, in God’s eyes that is not a true marriage of the ‘second woman’. YES? **
Therefore, there is at least ONE situation in which that ‘lewd conduct’ not only permits a divorce, but DEMANDS a divorce, because the marriage is not a true one. Yes?
How about a man who forces a woman to marry him? (yes, it still happens. Happens the other way too when a woman forces a man to marry her). If one of the parties is only consenting under duress and would not marry unless ‘forced’, that isn’t a true marriage either, is it? If you aren’t ‘free’ to make a vow, and in your heart you’re saying ‘no’, this isn’t a true marriage either. Or are you saying that a man who forces a woman to say yes is married in GOD’s eyes?
How about a man who LIES about something truly important. Suppose a man is a convicted felon who has managed to get himself a fake ID. If the woman KNEW he were a felon, she would not marry him. He marries her fraudulently.
How about if he is an alcoholic, or a pedophile, or homosexual, but wants to marry to provide a ‘cover’ to look ‘normal’, or just doesn’t want to admit the truth and lies? If he marries without telling the woman, this is fraud as well.
So. . .it looks as though (Biblically speaking) lewd conduct refers to situations where a marriage (and sexual union) occurs but because it is not a marriage in God’s eyes, then obviously it is not a true valid sacramental marriage and thus the parties in the marriage are committing ‘lewd conduct’ by sexual relations in what is not a true marriage.
And a ‘decree of nullity’ (which is colloquially termed an ‘annulment’) doesn’t make something ‘not happen.’
As with all the above, it acknowledges that a legal or civil marriage in its APPEARANCES took place but that due to some DEFECT OF FORM–that is, due to one or both parties not being free to consent, free to marry, marrying under false pretences, etc., they were not ‘truly’ married in God’s eyes.
So yes. It’s Biblical.
Think about it.
What it MEANS is that there were cases in Jesus’ time–just as there are today–where (because of those laws on divorce etc.) there were men and women (Samaritan woman, for example?) who had had ‘more than’ one spouse.
Suppose that you divorced your wife and married another woman. Are you ‘legally’ married to that other woman? Depending on the laws of your secular government perhaps. But are you married by the laws of God? No. If you are still in God’s eyes married to the wife you divorced, then you are committing ‘lewd conduct’ or adultery with the SECOND woman whom you have ‘married’.
So, obviously, in order to comply with God’s laws – right?–you would have to ‘divorce’ that second woman, and go back to your first spouse.
WOULDN’T YOU???
SO --the ‘divorce’ that Jesus permitted is that of a marriage that was not ‘valid’ to begin with, isn’t it???
That ‘second woman’ is ‘legally’ married and so must be legally ‘divorced’. . . and in order to comply with God’s law, that woman must be divorced so that the man return to his first wife, yes??
**Because–keep with me here–even though there appeared to be a good old ‘civil’ and legal marriage, in God’s eyes that is not a true marriage of the ‘second woman’. YES? **
Therefore, there is at least ONE situation in which that ‘lewd conduct’ not only permits a divorce, but DEMANDS a divorce, because the marriage is not a true one. Yes?
How about a man who forces a woman to marry him? (yes, it still happens. Happens the other way too when a woman forces a man to marry her). If one of the parties is only consenting under duress and would not marry unless ‘forced’, that isn’t a true marriage either, is it? If you aren’t ‘free’ to make a vow, and in your heart you’re saying ‘no’, this isn’t a true marriage either. Or are you saying that a man who forces a woman to say yes is married in GOD’s eyes?
How about a man who LIES about something truly important. Suppose a man is a convicted felon who has managed to get himself a fake ID. If the woman KNEW he were a felon, she would not marry him. He marries her fraudulently.
How about if he is an alcoholic, or a pedophile, or homosexual, but wants to marry to provide a ‘cover’ to look ‘normal’, or just doesn’t want to admit the truth and lies? If he marries without telling the woman, this is fraud as well.
So. . .it looks as though (Biblically speaking) lewd conduct refers to situations where a marriage (and sexual union) occurs but because it is not a marriage in God’s eyes, then obviously it is not a true valid sacramental marriage and thus the parties in the marriage are committing ‘lewd conduct’ by sexual relations in what is not a true marriage.
And a ‘decree of nullity’ (which is colloquially termed an ‘annulment’) doesn’t make something ‘not happen.’
As with all the above, it acknowledges that a legal or civil marriage in its APPEARANCES took place but that due to some DEFECT OF FORM–that is, due to one or both parties not being free to consent, free to marry, marrying under false pretences, etc., they were not ‘truly’ married in God’s eyes.
So yes. It’s Biblical.
O
otjm
Guest
And I agree with you ;absolutely, and so does the Catholic Church.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.
It takes just a tad bit more evidence than one party saying they lacked grave judgement. The tribunals are niether fools nor patsies. As I noted, more people fail to get a decree when they have started than do those who get one.
Using language such as “trophy” indicates an emotional rahter than a logical response to the issue. I ahve met a number of people who have had problems with the issues of decrees of nullity. Too often, the issue is not a factual issue, it is an emotional issue. and the decision is not made on an emotional basis, it is made on a rational factual basis.
I hav also run into people who hav interesting stories to tell. However, they are also the smae ones who don’t want to open the case to find out what the facts were; they will not bring out the documentation the tribunal gave them. Why the secrecy, if the facts were so obviously not there? Because they are not dealing with facts; they are dealing with the wounds from the divorce which have not healed.
NOTE: I do not make light of the wounds. But I have been around far too long and have far too much experience in the area of divorce and the area of wounds that have not healed. Wounds will not heal when the wounded party will not forgive. There is a vast difference between someone who has been wounded, has forgiven, and healed, and someone who has been wounded, will not forgive, and wants to continue to plead with all near and far how badly they have been screwed over and how evil the other party is. they want to keep that wound open; they want everyone to sympathize with them; they want to play the perpetual victim. when I encounter such people, I try to help. If they will not be helped, I move on.
And I have been around enough of them to know that the story they give and the story the other party gives leaves one to wonder if we are hearing about two different marriages rather than the same one.
It was not a very good book; she was an emotional wreck, and I am still trying to figure out how anyone could buy into marrying a Kennedy with the family history they have had concerning marriage and fidelity going back to JFK’s father and presume anything would be different.
And not a few people are trying to figure out why the Rota, of all jurisdictions, took three years to make a decision. No good answer has been forthcoming.
Sheila was on the carousel of life and thought she had grabbed the gold ring. She married into one of the wealthier families in the US, and one of the most politically connected, as well as one of the more popular idols of the press. If one cannot have fame and fortune by one’s own doing, one can marry into it and bask in the reflected glow. Sheila couldn’t get over what happened, and did not show a tremendously deep understanding of the Sacrament of Marriage, let alone any kind of clue as to what she was getting herself into. The book is a treatise on her angst, and most defintiely not an even-handed review of issues surrounding decrees of nullity. Whether or not the first tribunal had sufficient facts before them (as opposed to the facts upon which they decided the case) is open to reasonable arguement; but his subsequent actions speak volumes as to what he thought of marriage.
The statisics come from CARA and are published. And they are most definitely not all located in your state.
O
otjm
Guest
Given the absolutely abysmal excuse we had for catechesis starting in the 1970’s, and coupled with the rising number of people ending up atr the altar, many of whom had shacked up, and many more who had had serial sexual partners before marriage, both selfishness (or better, self-centeredness) and the apparent lack of any clue that sexual activity was for any purpose other than recreation, it is more a wonder that anyone approaching the altar has any thought about marriage being a permanent, exclusive, covenentual relationship with children as one of the two primary ends. No fault divorce, parents who are divorced and remarried ( or just living with someone), multiple divorces among some family members, and the plethora of fellow students whose parents are of the same situation leave youth near marraige age with little or no role models to follow; and the cynicism that attends them (the youth) that those who are still married simply have not yet filed for divorce add to the “understanding” of marriage that is is not a permanent institution;. Oh, and add to that the long-standing movment among homosexuals to redefine marriage, and now fast on their heels are the polyamorists who have openly declared that they intend to use the courts to further redefine marriage. The only thing we have not seemingly adopted from Europe is the more widely practiced (there) “open” marriage, where the marriage is more of an economic issue, and the mistress is openly acknowledged. The US with its more Puritan attitude towards morals does not as easily accept open adultery - which of course leads to more divorces.
C
chrisman27
Guest
I don’t agree with everything you said in above post.
But I do agree to Disagree.
By the way, sheila rauch kennedy’s book WAS informative.
She held her ground and ended up appealing to the ROTA in rome, WHO ,
by the way OVERTURNED her husband’s annulment.
And many tribunals are liberal, Most of them have divorced and remarried people on them.
It used to be ALL christian denominations were AGAINST divorce and remarriage.
But not these days, and certainly not the CC.
But I do agree to Disagree.
By the way, sheila rauch kennedy’s book WAS informative.
She held her ground and ended up appealing to the ROTA in rome, WHO ,
by the way OVERTURNED her husband’s annulment.
And many tribunals are liberal, Most of them have divorced and remarried people on them.
It used to be ALL christian denominations were AGAINST divorce and remarriage.
But not these days, and certainly not the CC.
C
chrisman27
Guest
Tantum Ergo…
Most people believe Jesus was referring to the act of adultrery.
Which many people think give them the right to remarry.
In my opinion, annulments are an easy out for most divorced catholics.
And the catholic church also grants CATHOLIC annulments to NON catholic
denominations, saying that they too had invalid marriages.
It never stops.
The catholic church rarely gave out annulments until the 1970’s.
Most people believe Jesus was referring to the act of adultrery.
Which many people think give them the right to remarry.
In my opinion, annulments are an easy out for most divorced catholics.
And the catholic church also grants CATHOLIC annulments to NON catholic
denominations, saying that they too had invalid marriages.
It never stops.
The catholic church rarely gave out annulments until the 1970’s.
O
otjm
Guest
to one who is uninformed, a book may appear to be very informative. Appearances often are far more important than reality when one is opinionated.
I am well aware who overturned it; the Rota was also directly criticized by the Pope for taking three tyears to sit on the case. However, you are presuming several things, not that it would makie a whole lot of difference. A case poorly presented is just that - a case poorly presented; and when one who is ignorant of the process uses a poorly presented case to prove a point, one fails without realizing it.
Unless you can quote something besides others pure speculation, you should keep your opinions to yourself.
And that is an outright fabrication of the truth.
O
otjm
Guest
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Many people? Believe? Why do they not ‘know?’ And it’s not even what you believe, I take it. . .
Did you not read the previous posts? You like to throw around the ‘60,000 a year being granted’. Well, let’s do some math.
In 1950 there was a world population (that is, Catholics and nonCatholics) of 2.5 billion people. In 1946 there was the start of the ‘baby boom’. 1946-1966.
So there was a huge ‘boom’ of people for whom marriage age would have started around 1966 to 2000 with the ages 20 to approximately 40 (and during this time the average age of people marrying went up from 22 for women and 24 for men to I believe the current of 26 for women and 29 for men).
One would expect with more people in the population, and with more people of marrying age actually marrying, that any ‘failure’ i.e. divorce rates would increase.
Let’s look again at the world population in 1950. 2.5 billion or so. (you can verify that in any encyclopedia, I’m giving it as a ‘round’ number.
Now, what is the world population in 1999–that is, at the ‘end’ of the youngest of the ‘baby boom’ being approximately age 33, still well in the ‘marrying age’ --and remembering that there will be another little ‘boomlet’ from about 1976-1996 of the ‘boomers’ having gen X and Y, many of whom are NOW marrying or approaching the mid teens and of marriagable age within the next decade or so.
What is the population in 199? Just shy of 6 billion people, about 5.7 billion.
IOW, in the 49 years between 1950 and 1999, corresponding with one HUGE bump of ‘marriage aged’ people and a smaller’ bumplet’ in the late years, the population has MORE THAN DOUBLED WORLDWIDE.
Furthermore, look at ‘plain’ divorce statistics prior to 1950. The Protestants are well ahead of the Catholics but still not all that ‘high’. The sexual revolution which had an impact on all societies was coming, though. So you have a time period of outside ‘societal’ upheaval along with a great number of ‘hormonal’ young people.
You also have one of the most AFFLUENT societies (in the western world) seen to date. IOW, where a more ‘agrarian’ society would have absorbed the nubile young people into having nice big farm families (as the Amish and Mennonites still do for example), we had a hugely urban society, with many disposable goods and instead of having the people out ‘working the land’ they were out dancing, playing, etc.
Picture a group of young people who have been up since early morning milking, plowing, planting, baking on a wood stove, pounding clothes on a board, etc. until dusk. They’re going to be tired. They don’t have the ‘funds’ to go to town and besides, they gotta get up at 5 a.m. to feed the chickens.
Picture another group who get up at the crack of noon, nuke their food, and then spend the next 12 hours mall-crawling, buying expensive toys, eating fast food, going to ‘entertainment’, and coming home where all the work will be done for them, and everything provided for them on a silver platter. They are much more likely, being sated with ‘materials’, not having a respectable physical outlet like farm and home chores to naturally exercise them, being used to ‘fast’ things and ‘sound bytes’ and requiring more and more ‘novelty’ to amuse them, to get into sexual ‘trouble.’
So you have a huge group of people of marrying age, a great number of whom have little if any personal responsibilities, most of whom are rampant consumers, few of whom do ANYTHING if it is ‘tiresome’ or ‘hard work’ because it’s just easier to ‘throw it out’ or ‘buy something new’–
A group which has been told, “Don’t trust anybody over 30”, a group for which ‘youth’ has become all knowing and parents are to be ignored, derided, and abused. . .
Suddenly getting the hormonal itch and wanting the ‘white lace and promises’.
And when they are ‘bored’, they want OUT. And they’ve always been able to ‘get out’ of everything else with our youth-worshipping, hedonistic, materialistic culture. Looking out for #1, ya know? Why keep on ‘trying’ when we’re TIRED of the ‘jerk’ we married? Why be ‘responsible?’
But then. . .a few more years pass and we gain some wisdom. We see that we were lazy, we were ignorant, we truly did not understand marriage, and we were not capable of making the vows. All we knew was ‘white lace and fun’. Now we know it takes work. We realize that we were just PRETENDING we knew the answers in order to have the ‘appearance’. We were NOT mature or capable of marriage, for a host of reasons.
Hopefully this materialistic culture will ‘subside’ back into more normalcy. When it does, you will see the divorce rates (and thus the decree of nullity rates) subside. Don’t make the mistake of theorizing ahead of your data and assuming that a huge ‘jump’ in something means that it is disordered, when it may simply REFLECT the disorder that caused it TO jump.
C
chrisman27
Guest
hmmm…there is also a thing called marriage vows.
Til Death do us part.
Also, pre cana classes are there to show people marriage is more
then white lace and promises.
www.saveoursacrament.org
Til Death do us part.
Also, pre cana classes are there to show people marriage is more
then white lace and promises.
www.saveoursacrament.org
C
chrisman27
Guest
one more thing…some annulments are given to people who have been married over 20 years.
so. that kind of kills the not knowing what they were getting into philosophy.
GO SHEILA GO SHEILA !!!
so. that kind of kills the not knowing what they were getting into philosophy.
GO SHEILA GO SHEILA !!!
C
chrisman27
Guest
again, blatant ignorance.
Blatant ignorance??
No, this is true. A protestant marriage has to be annulled through the tribunal if the
protestant person wishes to marry a catholic.
I know this real well.
Blatant ignorance??
No, this is true. A protestant marriage has to be annulled through the tribunal if the
protestant person wishes to marry a catholic.
I know this real well.
D
davidv
Guest
What you think you know is very far from the truth.
C
chrisman27
Guest
well, maybe me and this guy are in the wrong…
msnbc.msn.com/id/35143792/ns/world_news-europe/
msnbc.msn.com/id/35143792/ns/world_news-europe/
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
It does? Please explain to me how the ‘length of time’ that one is in a marriage can show that one ‘knew what they were getting into.’
Let’s suppose you are a nice (but naive) young woman who marries a young man. Suppose that for the first couple of years he isolates you from your family (because he wants to ‘spend time with just you.’ ) Suppose that for the next 10 years or so you’re having children, being isolated more and more because, "he doesn’t want the children left with strangers.’ Suppose that by this time he’s started to slap you around when he comes home drunk. Suppose you don’t have many work skills, you have young children, you don’t have work experience that’s current because you’ve been out of the work force, suppose you’re trying to protect your children from being hit. All this time, too, he explains that it’s all YOUR fault and that if you would only be a ‘decent person’ instead of the slob, the shrew, the loser that you are, everything would be all right. And of course, every now and then, suppose that he suddenly ‘plays nice’ and it looks as though maybe things WILL work. . .until he has a bad day at work or one of the kids gets sick, and then it’s back to the screams and the curses and the beatings. . .which, of course, are all YOUR fault.
Then suppose that 25 years have gone by, you’ve been able (barring the verbal and emotional abuse, and the occasional slap and even the broken finger) to raise your children, the oldest is now out of the house, and you FINALLY are able to safely leave without worrying that your children will be hurt by him.
So, now tell me that because you’ve been married 25 years and living under those hellish conditions that it ‘proves’ you ‘knew what you were getting into.’
I’m waiting. . .
C
chrisman27
Guest
what about a wife or husband who faithfully sticks to his/her marriage and is dumped
because her husband/wife picked up with the new hot thing at the office?
and now the wife or husband sees them actively participating in the mass AND receiving the Eucharist because the tribunal granted the ex an annulment on “lack of grave judgment”
or “immaturity”
maybe some of these spouses are being left out in the cold with no support system and no marriage, and even the church is not on their side.
because her husband/wife picked up with the new hot thing at the office?
and now the wife or husband sees them actively participating in the mass AND receiving the Eucharist because the tribunal granted the ex an annulment on “lack of grave judgment”
or “immaturity”
maybe some of these spouses are being left out in the cold with no support system and no marriage, and even the church is not on their side.
C
chrisman27
Guest
I don’t believe in spousal abuse, but not everyone’s marriage goes perfectly.
Just because the guy turns out to be a jerk doesn’ t mean they were not validly married.
and she sticks out 25 years?? couldnt have been that bad.
Just because the guy turns out to be a jerk doesn’ t mean they were not validly married.
and she sticks out 25 years?? couldnt have been that bad.
E
eucharisteo
Guest
Many states are passing laws to derail this kind of thinking. If a spouse abuses the children and the other spouse doesn’t report it both spouses can do time in prison. I think after 20 or more years of marriage there really is no excuse for not sticking things out unless all resources have been pursued, i.e, marriage counseling. If that is the case then oh well, the situation remains scandalous and reflects poorly upon everyone. In the old days, this was never an excuse. The terms open to a true marriage has been distorted. In this case King Henry VIII’s marriage would easily have been declared null. I think this has been taken to a new scandalous height and it is the selfish pride that keeps people from accepting the consequences of their actions. I had to accept that my marriage was not valid 21 years ago and suck it up. It hurt my wife and me as a result because I was practicing my Christian faith at the time. I chose that state because I believe Catholics were on the verge of going to hell in a hand basket. It’s the truth that brought me home, not the on going scandalous practices.
C
chrisman27
Guest
so you believe your marriage WAS valid
or NOT valid ?
or NOT valid ?
- Status