Traditions of Man - Divorce and Remarriage

[Raphe]

Kirane:

This points out the difference between us. I am concerned about the children suffering from a marital breakup and from a wrecked family life, however, you don;t seem to care and don’t think it is relevant to what God expects from married people.
see:

Kirane, this is a very valid concern. The aftermath of annullments on people and children should not be overlooked. But, I’ll give those in this debate a bit more credit. I don’t think anyone on here will disagree with your concerns about that. Nor do I get the sense that any right minded Catholic would think annullments are a good thing. If there are any out there speak up - I’ll be surprised.

However, the issue of whether a marriage is valid or not, is not the end negative effects. Although it may be a factor when one considers investigating one.

Someone in the beginning of the posts made some comparison to these situations with investing stocks. I think they gave an example of a stock broker deceiving their client and leaving them basically bankrupt. They seemed to conclude that since I was bankrupt and the physical and emotional results are similar - then therefore whether I was deceived and conned had no bearing on the fact that I was still bankrupt. I think you seem to be making the same conclusions because in both cases the focus seems to be solely on the negative aftermath. Therefore all situations that result in this aftermath must be the same.

That sounds logical, but is this a fair and complete comparison? When solving trying to solve an algebra problem, I can use a logical process, but if I neglect to include all the variables in the equation, couldn’t I come up with the wrong answer?

For arguments, sake we’ll entertain this idea that a deceptive stock broker violated his initial contract for whatever reason and left me bankrupt.

Now let’s look at another similar example for comparison. Let’s say I deal with a different stock broker instead. This one is on the up and up. He seems like a good character at first, and I get along well with him. I put my trust in him and let him handle my account. Yet somewhere along the way maybe I don’t like certain stock choices he makes. Maybe there are some personality issues going on, but I go along with it for awhile. Now let’s say that in this case the stock broker was never deceptive and all the contracts I entered into were valid and legally binding. As you know with making investments, there are usually many clauses one of which is “past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.” Therefore, I understand and consent to the inherent risks, even though I may not be happy with the outcome. Now, let’s say the market tanks and my shares take a big hit. Or maybe the broker makes some poor choices, but the intial contract was always valid. At any rate, I become financially bankrupt. Just because the net effects are the same as the first example, are the two situations identical?

Let’s say that regardless of the scenario, I’m unhappy with what has happened. My life seems ruined now and may be for some time to come. I decide to sue this broker because I think he wronged me. Usually, the case will go before a judge right? If I claim that he violated a contract, the judge will review the case and see if there really was a breach of contract to begin with. If there was none, I may not have any legal options. If the contract was null and void to begin with, I may have legal options that I might not otherwise be entitled too.

Isn’t the marital vow, also a marital contract? Even in civil cases marriage has legal and binding consequences to it.

Now just because in a legalistic sense, someone has the option of excerising certain rights, it doesn’t mean they always should. For example, let’s say I was not bankrupted but I still took a big hit financially. Suing my broker may make matters only worse - especially if I lose the case. I might be out even more money in lawyers fees.

I think even Jesus gave an example of this by setting things right with our brethren before going to court - as the judge may not rule in our favor either.

And with respect to marriage, I hate to compare this with money because we are talking about something even more important -people’s lives.

So, it would be wise for Catholics to exhaust all means even if there really is legitimate grounds for an annullment. Sometimes, one party can do all they can and it is still not enough though.

 

[Raphe]

With respect to the rate of annullments and all cases being on valid grounds, I am a bit skeptical of that myself.

Especially in western countries and the U.S. in particular. Why is there such a huge disparity? Let’s not forget that even JPII publicly noted this and wanted the matter looked in to. Are we as Catholics doing enough to rectify this epidemic crisis?

I don’t doubt that part of it is that many of westerners tend to be more immature on an emotional level. There tends to be more of a self-centeredness. And this is counter to what Christ taught and what marriage is about. I think we are also heavily influenced by our secular media and culture which tends to emphasize this attitude. I would not totally discount this in the desparity.

Still, even if that is the case, what is being done to counter the core problems?

I think that is why the Church should and has the responsibility to go to greater lengths to ensure that those getting married understand the seriousness of what they are undergoing.

When I went through marriage preparation it was a complete joke. In fact, most of what the counselor taught and advocated was more secular than Christian. Most of it seemed geared to just accepting people’s states of lives - even if they are living in a state of mortal sin. I got the impression the whole process was a mere formality, and didn’t want to rock couple’s boats.

So, the Church should go to greater lengths in that area. And if there are problems making adequate counseling services available - especially if an annullment is being sought.

How is the couple’s prayer life - is the Church encouraging it or helping it? It could be the key to all the couples problems. As it has been said the family that prays together stays together.

They should also look very seriously at any Catholic who has been through an annullment and is looking to get remarried - especially if they were responsible in any way for the marriage contract being invalid in the first place. What has changed with them? How can they be certain this time around that they are not overseeing the same troubled situation?

I have a sister-in-law who went through an annullment. She is married now. I don’t know the details, but my impression from what I heard is that it was mainly an issue of maturity. There may have been valid reasons for granting the annullment - I don’t know and had no part in it. However, I sense that the real issues were matters of maturity which if Christ was the center of their relationship (which I get the impression He wasn’t) it could have easily been reconciled.

I have also have a cousin who married an Indian fellow. He had to apply for an annullment because he was in an arranged marriage which he never wanted to be part of - but that was their culture. I think that is a clear cut and reasonable case.

Regardless of whether the marriage is not valid, the empahsis should be on keeping the family together if at all possible. You are right there are too many negative effects especially with children involved.

Like with divorce, seeking an annullment may seem to be the easy solution at the moment. And if there are major problems, rarely are all the problems the result of just one person in the relationship. It may be disproportionate in a sense, but it takes two to tango. And ultimately we can only control what we do - that should be our focus.

 

[Kay_Cee]

sandusky:

Kay Cee, as presented in scripture, the marriage bond is primarily a physical bond. Of course, the husband has the responsibility to teach his wife in spiritual matters, but the primary focus of marriage is the physical bond. That man (and woman) not be physically alone, that they leave and cleave, that the man is the head, that they honor and love, that they not deny each other physically—it is a physical bond in a physical world.

That is why, without question, death quits the marriage vow, ie., one partner is no longer physically present.

Your thoughts of keeping your vow, even when you are divorced, and forsaken for another in marriage are sweet, but they are also, IMHO, misguided, and in error. Being that the marriage bond is a physical bond, there must be physicality in order to honor the vow. If you chose not to remarry after your husband divorced you, that is not the same thing as keeping your marriage vow. In order for you to keep the marriage vow, you must have a marriage partner physically present.

So, if my husband falls into a permanent coma, I’m no longer married to him? We can hardly have a physical bond under that condition. What if he’s kidnapped and I never know if he will return or not? I can’t have a physical bond then, either.

I fail to see how that means I can no longer keep my marriage vows. I can still stay married to him, (that is, I would remain in the marital state) for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness (like a coma) or in health. I said, “Till death do us part” not “Till you’re not physically present do us part.”

What you don’t seem to grasp is that I made a carefully worded vow to God, and I intend to keep that vow *as worded. *I don’t know what kind of marriage vows the early Christians took (that is, I don’t know how they were worded), or if they even took marriage vows at all. Perhaps they took vows that allowed for remarriage after divorce if adultery occurred, but I don’t know. However, the fact remains that, regardless of what porniea means, I took a vow and should keep that vow *as it is worded. *That’s what I promised, what I vowed to God, and shouldn’t I keep vows I make to God?

I do not want you take my word for it; investigate it. What is a waste of time is debating the meaning on this forum. Lookup the word in a N.T. Greek Lexicon; there is nothing to debate.

I do intend to investigate it.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

Yes I am. This is the question: how many cases of the Pauline privilege have been granted in the years since Vatican II and how does it compare with the number of people involved in getting annulments in the RCC, which is way over two million annulled people in the USA alone since Vatican II? I submit to you that if you compare the number of people involved in divorces granted by the RCC via the Pauline privilege, with the number of people involved in RC annulments in the USA, you will be comparing something like the rippling of water in a teacup with the rippling of waves of water in the Hurricane Katrina and the damages caused will be analogous.
I continue to read that children from broken families, generally, have it more difficult than those from loving caring homes.
unitedfamilies.org/divorce.asp
As you point out there are exceptions, which I admit.
But I have not budged from my contention that there is really no difference in the real world between an annulment and a divorce. They are just different names which refer to legalising or institutionalising a marital breakup.

So, you agree that there is no mention of the effects on children with the Pauline privilege. Why then, do you believe that if a marriage was null from the beginning, the fact that children will be emotionally affected by the break-up is a legitimate argument against a marriage being declared null?

Your arguments about children of divorce are patronizing as well. I agree that there is way too much divorce going on in this country - “no fault divorce” being one of our society’s worst creations in this whole issue. But the Church is not creating this divorce culture. The Church is dealing with the effects of a society that takes marriage lightly and has made getting married into a “wedding industry”. If more people took marriage as seriously as Christ teaches us to through His Church (Catholic or not), we wouldn’t be seeing all of these divorces in our society. It is a money-making business and an entertainment industry, i.e. “Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?”

Also, you have not shown why other Christian churches allowing divorce and remarriage is biblically justified.

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

So, if my husband falls into a permanent coma, I’m no longer married to him? We can hardly have a physical bond under that condition. What if he’s kidnapped and I never know if he will return or not? I can’t have a physical bond then, either.

Sickness is part of the vow.

 

[sandusky]

LittleDeb:

I used to think that Jesus was speaking on the criteria for divorce too. That is, until it was pointed out to me that Jesus never contradicts Himself. The two passages in which Jesus speaks about divorce are for a very different reason than Protestants have been taught to believe.

What is the reason?

LittleDeb:

Protestants, please study these passages more carefully. Research the history of the two towns He speaks to.

Man’s history, and his sinful condition are the relevant issues in divorce, not the history of towns.

LittleDeb:

You will discover you have been led down a path of error in teaching.

The scriptural teaching on divorce is straightforward. Divorce is a concession to man’s sinfulness, and for it to meet that concession, it can be granted only on the basis of adultery, or desertion by an unbelieving spouse, or at the request of an unbelieving spouse.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

If more people took marriage as seriously as Christ teaches us to through His Church (Catholic or not), we wouldn’t be seeing all of these divorces in our society. .

And we would not be seeing the family breakups as authorised by the RC process of annulments, which in most cases in the USA are given on the ambiguous grounds of “defect of consent”. But the number of annulments granted by the RC Church has soared from under 100 per year in the USA before Vatican II, to more than 50000 per year in the USA after Vatican II. The figures indicate that the Church tribunals have watered down the reasons for granting an annulment in the first place, so that just about anyone can get an annulment. I read the following: “Many people believe that virtually any failed marriage can be annulled on the basis of incapacity and immaturity.” Justt as virtually any married couple can get a divorce, so too virtually any Catholic married couple can get an annulment. However, there are exceptions. For example, there was a local political figure who had been married three times already and obtained two annulments in order to marry the second and third times in the RCC. However, when he applied for the thrid annulment, as he wanted to get married a fourth time, he was turned down. So there are people who get turned down for the annulment, but the overwhelming majority of those who app;ly for it, will get it. so it is just another way to legitimise a marital breakup.
I am not saying that a marital breakup is never advisable. However, I would add that studies do show that in many cases children are left at a disadvantage because of it. My main claim here is that there is really no difference, except for packaging, in getting a Protestant style divorce, or a Catholic style annulment. They both amount to a recognition of a breakup in the marriage and a green light for the people to remarry.

 

[john_ennis]

Not sure if the original post has been precisely addressed.

Everybody agree here that any faith tradition which does not teach that divorcing and remarrying are adultery, is failing to teach what Christ taught?

Peace.
John

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

And we would not be seeing the family breakups as authorised by the RC process of annulments, which in most cases in the USA are given on the ambiguous grounds of “defect of consent”.

You are incorrect. A Catholic can still get a civil divorce, they just cannot remarry. Annulments are not a cause of the divorce rate in this country! A civil divorce is not recognized by the Church and in the eyes of the Church a couple who had a valid sacramental marriage are still married even if legally they are not. You are trying to blame the epidemic of divorce in this country on the Church when in fact the Church is the last bastion of biblical teaching on the sacredness of marriage.

You continue to justify Protestant divorce and remarriage but… is it biblical?

Protestant ministers marrying divorced people contradicts Christ’s teachings and it is unbiblical. So much for being “bible only”!
John Ennis:

Everybody agree here that any faith tradition which does not teach that divorcing and remarrying are adultery, is failing to teach what Christ taught?

 

[Kirane]

john ennis:

Not sure if the original post has been precisely addressed.

Everybody agree here that any faith tradition which does not teach that divorcing and remarrying are adultery, is failing to teach what Christ taught?

Peace.
John

It might be, but what is the best way to handle it? For example, the Eastern Churches, which were in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church before 1054 AD, practiced divorce, according to people speaking for the Eastern Orthodox Church, and this was allowed. But the provision was that the divorce was a sin, but like any other sin, it could be forgiven via confession. I am very much concerned by the RC teaching on annulments, which seems to be to be a rather serious abuse of the original annulment process. Originally, the annulment process was designed for the situation in which one of the partners was already married or where there was some serious impediment agaisnt the marriage in the first place. And this has been blown way out of proportion today, so that just about anyone can get an annulment based on the concept of defect of consent. In many cases, people are married happily for several years, and then some problems arise in the marriage, either infidelity or incompatiblity or something else. Then they go to a Church lawyer who advises them that they can claim that ten years ago they did not give full consent to their wedding vows at the time of the wedding ceremony. I don;t see this as anything else except as an abuse of the annulment process, and as an equivalent to the process of getting a divorce, except that it is in different packaging.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

For example, there was a local political figure who had been married three times already and obtained two annulments in order to marry the second and third times in the RCC. However, when he applied for the thrid annulment, as he wanted to get married a fourth time, he was turned down. So there are people who get turned down for the annulment, but the overwhelming majority of those who app;ly for it, will get it. so it is just another way to legitimise a marital breakup.

Can you please tell me who this politician is?

Hey, you’re right! If a teaching of the Church is being abused at the local level, I think we should just throw it in the bin! Forget the Bible. Forget what Jesus taught. If a teaching can be abused what is the point of keeping it anyway? Let’s just give way to the sinful nature of man, admit it and allow any divorced people to remarry like the Protestants have done; because I think we *should *change our theology if sinful people are just going to abuse it anyway.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

I am very much concerned by the RC teaching on annulments, which seems to be to be a rather serious abuse of the original annulment process.

Why would a non-Catholic be very much concerned about the Catholic teaching on annulments?

In any event, good argument there - if it can be abused, can it!

You still haven’t explained why Protestant ministers marrying divorced people into adulterous new “marriages” is biblical.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Annulments are not a cause of the divorce rate in this country! .

I agree with you on that, because the rate of increase of annulments is much greater that the rater of increase of divorces in the USA.
Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
These are figures overall, for all the divorces granted in the USA in a given year.
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.

 

[Eden]

Kirane:

Eden:

Annulments are not a cause of the divorce rate in this country! QUOTE]
I agree with you on that, because the rate of increase of annulments is much greater that the rater of increase of divorces in the USA.
Let’s compare the number of divorces with the number of annulments in the USA.
Divorces in the USA
1930: 195, 961
1979: 1,179,000
1998: 1,135,000
These are figures overall, for all the divorces granted in the USA in a given year.
Annulments given out by the Catholic Church:
1930: 9
1989: 61, 416.
The divorces have increased by a factor of about 6 (5.9)
The annulments in the RCC have increased over the same period by a factor of 6824, or more than one thousand times as much as the divorces in the USA at large.

You have already shown me those numbers. But “divorces in the USA” does not mean “Catholic divorces in the USA”. You also have not given the link to where you got these numbers which I asked for before. It looks like you showed the increase in overall divorce rates in the USA (all citizens, not just Catholics) and then gave the annulment rates. Link please!

You still haven’t explained why Protestant ministers marrying divorced people into adulterous new “marriages” is biblical.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Hey, you’re right! If a teaching of the Church is being abused at the local level, I think we should just throw it in the bin! :

I would not agree with you on that. My approach would be to rectify the abuse and to go back to the original teaching on annulments as it was before Vatican II.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Forget the Bible. Forget what Jesus taught. If a teaching can be abused what is the point of keeping it anyway? Let’s just give way to the sinful nature of man, admit it and allow any divorced people to remarry like the Protestants have done; because I think we *should *change our theology if sinful people are just going to abuse it anyway.

There is a question here of the propriety of observing the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Suppose for this part of the discussion that divorce violates the letter of the law. The question then would be does the RC practice of handing out annulments to just about whoever asks for them violate the spirit of the law?

 

[Eden]

Let’s talk about that on a new thread specifically about annulments. I don’t know how else to say this, but I have asked you politely before to start a new thread on annulments and said I would participate. You have turned a thread about the Protestant traditions of men concerning remarriage after divorce into a thread on annulments. If you don’t want to start the thread, I can for you.

But in the meantime, will you please respond to this:

Explain why Protestant ministers marrying divorced people into adulterous new “marriages” is biblical.

 

[Eden]

Can you give me the link/s for the statistics in post #268, by the way?

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Can you give me the link/s for the statistics in post #268, by the way?

I did not find the statistics on the internet, but at the local library. For example, the statistics on the Catholic annulments in the USA is given in the National Catholic Almanac, 1942, St. Anthony’s Guild, Patterson, New Jersey; Our Sunda Visitors Catholic Almanac, Compiled and edited by Felician A. foy, OFM, and Rose M. Avato, Our Sunday Visitor Oublishing Co., Huntington, Indiana 46750, the various: Statistical Yearbook of the Church, (example 1994), the world almanacs, etc.

 

[Kirane]

Eden:

Explain why Protestant ministers marrying divorced people into adulterous new “marriages” is biblical.

I don;t speak for Protestant ministers, but a guess would be similar to what I already said in post #265, concerning the policy of the Eastern Churches in full communion with the Roman Church before 1054 according to which they granted divorces, and allowed remarriage, but considered that these divorces were sinful to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the circumstances and to be judged by God. But like any other sin, it could be forgiven, which in the case of an Eastern Orthodox person, would be via the confessional. That would be just a guess on my part.