Question Re: Divorce

Celtic_Catholic · #1 Jan 24, '10, 3:47 pm

I agree that divorced people shouldn't date unless they are granted an annulment. My husband left me 12 years ago and we were divorced in December 2002. I haven't been involved, on any level, with anyone since my husband. I still wear my wedding ring, not because of my devotion to him but because of my commitment to God and the union of marriage (if that makes sense). The reason I haven't pursued an annulment is because I've been so busy over the years struggling financially, building a home business and taking care of my child that I had no time, desire or energy to find a new relationship. And although a priest told me I have grounds, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be granted. However, I do have a question regarding this.

Didn't Christ say that divorce and remarriage is permitted if the spouse commits adultery? Matthew 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This statement doesn't mention anything about deception at the onset of the marriage. It is specifically referring to immoral acts after marriage. And there are other places in the Bible that states the same. Since an annulment is granted when deception at the alter is proven, could someone explain why we don't follow the scripture regarding divorce and remarriage?

Rence · #2 Jan 24, '10, 5:29 pm

When my mom was in the process of getting an annulment, the Priest told her that in order for a marriage to be considered null and void, you'd have to prove that the marriage was not a marriage in the first place. For example, if there was deceit involved in the marriage, one of the requirements (consent) was not met, therefore the marriage was void. If the marriage is never consummated, it can be annuled. If one of the parties proves to be too immature to be responsible, they can be considered too immature to have given consent to be married. I"m sure there are more reasons, but those were examples that were given to her.

I see what you're saying about the scripture and of course, it seems clear as day to me, but the Priest told my mom that infidelity, as well as physical and/or emotional abuse did not prove that the marriage wasn't a marriage to begin with and therefore didn't qualify for an annulment. My mom got her annulment for the consent issue (of course, he did everything under the sun, including cheat, lie, do drugs, drink alcohol excessively, etc.).

Anyway, I am hoping that the Priest was wrong, but I have a feeeling he was not. He was a very devoted and highly intelligent priest who used to translate Latin into English for the Vatican. I'd be surprised (not unpleasantly either) if he was wrong.

My mom was dating another man while the both of them were working through their annulments. One priest that she confided in would not absolve her unless she promised to stop seeing him until both their annulments were complete. But the other priests used to just remind her that they had to be chaste until their annulments were complete and they were remarried in the Church. I honestly don't remember if it was something that had to be absolved or not. But I know she talked about it in confession each time before she went to communion.

Another thing is, my mom couldn't afford an annulment either. They told her to "make a donation when she was able". I have no idea how much of a donation they asked for, or even if they made a dollar amount request. But my mom wasn't able to make her donation for a few years after she was granted her annulment. Someone from the diocese called her and asked her what her check was for (I think she sent a $500 or $800 dollar check and they wanted to make sure it was a donation and not a payment for something else). I thought that was kind of weird, you would think they would have had a record of some sort. But in any event, they never held it over her head or harassed her, or made her pay for it before the annulment was complete. Perhaps you should petition for your annulment and make it known that you don't have resources now but would gladly make a donation when you could? Her priest, the one who helped her get through the process, really advocated for her and helped her a lot. Your priest should do the same. I think it's horrible when I hear about certain diocese holding people's financial status over their head before an annulment is given

Pug · #3 Jan 24, '10, 5:30 pm

The other new testament books do not mention the clause you have in mind. They instead read like:

St. Paul: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

St. Luke: "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

So, what situation did St. Matthew have in mind? You might find it profitable to read an article in This Rock, by Jimmy Akin:

Did Jesus Say Adultery Is Grounds for Divorce?

Rence · #4 Jan 24, '10, 5:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pug

The other new testament books do not mention the clause you have in mind. They instead read like:

St. Paul: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

St. Luke: "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

So, what situation did St. Matthew have in mind? You might find it profitable to read an article in This Rock, by Jimmy Akin:

Did Jesus Say Adultery Is Grounds for Divorce?

Pug, the Douay-Rheims says this in Matt 5:32
32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Pug · #5 Jan 24, '10, 5:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

Pug, the Douay-Rheims says this in Matt 5:32
32 But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Yes, that is so.

I'm not sure what you mean? Matthew is the new testament book that contains the clause. I agree.

Celtic_Catholic · #6 Jan 24, '10, 6:18 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rence

When my mom was in the process of getting an annulment, the Priest told her that in order for a marriage to be considered null and void, you'd have to prove that the marriage was not a marriage in the first place. For example, if there was deceit involved in the marriage, one of the requirements (consent) was not met, therefore the marriage was void. If the marriage is never consummated, it can be annuled. If one of the parties proves to be too immature to be responsible, they can be considered too immature to have given consent to be married. I"m sure there are more reasons, but those were examples that were given to her.

I see what you're saying about the scripture and of course, it seems clear as day to me, but the Priest told my mom that infidelity, as well as physical and/or emotional abuse did not prove that the marriage wasn't a marriage to begin with and therefore didn't qualify for an annulment. My mom got her annulment for the consent issue (of course, he did everything under the sun, including cheat, lie, do drugs, drink alcohol excessively, etc.).

Anyway, I am hoping that the Priest was wrong, but I have a feeeling he was not. He was a very devoted and highly intelligent priest who used to translate Latin into English for the Vatican. I'd be surprised (not unpleasantly either) if he was wrong.

My mom was dating another man while the both of them were working through their annulments. One priest that she confided in would not absolve her unless she promised to stop seeing him until both their annulments were complete. But the other priests used to just remind her that they had to be chaste until their annulments were complete and they were remarried in the Church. I honestly don't remember if it was something that had to be absolved or not. But I know she talked about it in confession each time before she went to communion.

Another thing is, my mom couldn't afford an annulment either. They told her to "make a donation when she was able". I have no idea how much of a donation they asked for, or even if they made a dollar amount request. But my mom wasn't able to make her donation for a few years after she was granted her annulment. Someone from the diocese called her and asked her what her check was for (I think she sent a $500 or $800 dollar check and they wanted to make sure it was a donation and not a payment for something else). I thought that was kind of weird, you would think they would have had a record of some sort. But in any event, they never held it over her head or harassed her, or made her pay for it before the annulment was complete. Perhaps you should petition for your annulment and make it known that you don't have resources now but would gladly make a donation when you could? Her priest, the one who helped her get through the process, really advocated for her and helped her a lot. Your priest should do the same. I think it's horrible when I hear about certain diocese holding people's financial status over their head before an annulment is given

I was completely unaware that you could donate a sum of money after the annulment. I thought it had to be paid in advance. So I really appreciate this piece of information. I am going to speak to a priest about this soon.

Thank you very much for this detailed response. I hope your mother is happy now and has the life she deserves.

God bless you!

Rence · #7 Jan 24, '10, 6:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pug

Yes, that is so.

I'm not sure what you mean? Matthew is the new testament book that contains the clause. I agree.

I simply mean that I also made the same observation that Celtic_Catholic did

That's all.

Celtic_Catholic · #8 Jan 24, '10, 6:51 pm

I want to thank you for your answers. Personally, I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever to leave the church and marry another man because my husband was heavily involved in sexual immorality. I've been totally on my own for more than 12 years because of my faithfulness to God and devotion to my religion. I don't date. I don't look, and I'm totally uninterested. The only way I would consider marrying in the future is if I got an annulment from the church and met a nice Catholic man. But I am curious about these passages.

I read a good portion of the link provided. However, I'm still at odds a bit. See, it's mentioned twice in the Book of Matthew. And although the Books in the Bible may have been written for different societies, the words of Christ shouldn't have been changed, excluded or altered. So I'm wondering what HE actually said . . . how Christ actually worded it. Because that makes all the difference. It's easy to exclude a portion of what someone says and have it still be the truth. But it's lying, in a sense, to include something He didn't actually say when quoting Him.

Pug · #9 Jan 24, '10, 8:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic_Catholic

I want to thank you for your answers. Personally, I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever to leave the church and marry another man because my husband was heavily involved in sexual immorality. I've been totally on my own for more than 12 years because of my faithfulness to God and devotion to my religion. I don't date. I don't look, and I'm totally uninterested. The only way I would consider marrying in the future is if I got an annulment from the church and met a nice Catholic man. But I am curious about these passages.

I read a good portion of the link provided. However, I'm still at odds a bit. See, it's mentioned twice in the Book of Matthew. And although the Books in the Bible may have been written for different societies, the words of Christ shouldn't have been changed, excluded or altered. So I'm wondering what HE actually said . . . how Christ actually worded it. Because that makes all the difference. It's easy to exclude a portion of what someone says and have it still be the truth. But it's lying, in a sense, to include something He didn't actually say when quoting Him.

My husband keeps yelling from the other room about the Vikings game, so I'm rather distracted tonight.

Hmmm. I don't think someone (Luke, Matthew, etc.) is lying about what Jesus said. You are saying that you are more comfortable with the idea that Matthew has the actual words, since you can accept that the others just left out a few words. Okay, but why are you fairly sure that the words that Matthew records are about about the woman doing adultery while married and then this triggers the divorce? It doesn't say she did adultery while married. The word in the clause that is translated either as "unchastity" or "fornication" is not the basic word for "adultery", and it also doesn't say that whatever she did was actually done during the marriage, at least not as far as I can tell in the English. The basic word for "adultery" appears in Matthew there, but not in the clause itself. The verses shortly before, verses 27 and 28 contain "adultery", and so does verse 32, but it is where it says "makes her commit adultery" and "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", not where it says "except for unchastity".

So I've wondered about that passage myself while reading it. Maybe it means that the marriage itself is not right, that the marriage itself is the instance of unchastity. That would mean that it is legally a marriage in some way, yet it really isn't, so that it is really fornication, in which case divorce isn't really what it normally would be. So of course divorcing her would not "make(s) her to commit adultery", since she wouldn't have been married, so it won't be adultery.

And I know you are just asking about this, and not fighting your faith!

I think this is worth thinking about, and trying to understand what it says. I myself keep finding it requires a hypothesis on my part to decide what it says, so I've never felt I can arrive at a clear conclusion.

Just to share some history of my thoughts, when I was younger I had wondered if that clause was there to talk about what if he went into the wedding night and found out she was not as advertised, so to speak, and so wanted to ditch her. It had seemed possible to me back then on account of the crazy passage they have in the old testament about the parents producing the bloodied bedsheets when a man made that type of accusation.

CarrieH · #10 Jan 24, '10, 8:23 pm

Just a thought...even if you have no interest in dating or pursing a relationship at this point in your life doesn't mean that you will always feel this way. The longer you wait, the harder it can be to round up witnesses if you do decide to file, esp. as we get older. After watching a coworker in her mid-50's go through all kinds of grief trying to find witnesses for her case (parents were deceased, friends who knew her on her wedding day had lost touch over the years), I decided to go ahead and file for my own annulment while my mother is still alive, knowing that she would be my best witness. Like you, I'm not too keen on dating right now, but we never know what the future holds.

Good luck and God bless, no matter what you decide.

thistle · #11 Jan 25, '10, 4:42 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic_Catholic

I agree that divorced people shouldn't date unless they are granted an annulment. My husband left me 12 years ago and we were divorced in December 2002. I haven't been involved, on any level, with anyone since my husband. I still wear my wedding ring, not because of my devotion to him but because of my commitment to God and the union of marriage (if that makes sense). The reason I haven't pursued an annulment is because I've been so busy over the years struggling financially, building a home business and taking care of my child that I had no time, desire or energy to find a new relationship. And although a priest told me I have grounds, that doesn't necessarily mean it will be granted. However, I do have a question regarding this.

Didn't Christ say that divorce and remarriage is permitted if the spouse commits adultery? Matthew 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This statement doesn't mention anything about deception at the onset of the marriage. It is specifically referring to immoral acts after marriage. And there are other places in the Bible that states the same. Since an annulment is granted when deception at the alter is proven, could someone explain why we don't follow the scripture regarding divorce and remarriage?

He is saying that divorce or separation is allowed because of that but not remarriage.

D-R Bible, Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 32. Excepting the cause of fornication. A divorce or separation as to bed and board, may be permitted for some weighty causes in Christian marriages; but even then, he that marrieth her that is dismissed, commits adultery. As to this, there is no exception. The bond of marriage is perpetual; and what God hath joined, no power on earth can separate. See again Matthew xix. 9. (Witham) --- The knot of marriage is so sacred a tie, that the separation of the parties cannot loosen it, it being not lawful for either of the parties to marry again upon a divorce. (St. Augustine, de bon. conjug. chap. vii.) (Bristow)

camerong · #12 Jan 25, '10, 2:24 pm

There are two readings that I can see. The first allows CIVIL divorce if adultery is committed. This, however, still does not allow remarriage, or allow one of the spouses to have sex with another person.

The second reading is that the Greek word translated to mean fornication refers to a state of unnatural sexual relations which can only occur prior to the marriage. Fornication is not adultery--it is impossible for a valid wife to commit fornication. Thus, it is a reference to how a marriage was invalid from the beginning.

For more information, consult: http://www.catholic.com/library/Perm..._Matrimony.asp and
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509sbs.asp
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmes...Pgnu=1&recnu=2

Celtic_Catholic · #13 Jan 25, '10, 7:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by CarrieH

Just a thought...even if you have no interest in dating or pursing a relationship at this point in your life doesn't mean that you will always feel this way. The longer you wait, the harder it can be to round up witnesses if you do decide to file, esp. as we get older. After watching a coworker in her mid-50's go through all kinds of grief trying to find witnesses for her case (parents were deceased, friends who knew her on her wedding day had lost touch over the years), I decided to go ahead and file for my own annulment while my mother is still alive, knowing that she would be my best witness. Like you, I'm not too keen on dating right now, but we never know what the future holds.

Good luck and God bless, no matter what you decide.

Thank you for your advice. I am planning to move on things soon. God bless you as well.

Celtic_Catholic · #14 Jan 26, '10, 8:27 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pug

My husband keeps yelling from the other room about the Vikings game, so I'm rather distracted tonight.

Hmmm. I don't think someone (Luke, Matthew, etc.) is lying about what Jesus said. You are saying that you are more comfortable with the idea that Matthew has the actual words, since you can accept that the others just left out a few words. Okay, but why are you fairly sure that the words that Matthew records are about about the woman doing adultery while married and then this triggers the divorce? It doesn't say she did adultery while married. The word in the clause that is translated either as "unchastity" or "fornication" is not the basic word for "adultery", and it also doesn't say that whatever she did was actually done during the marriage, at least not as far as I can tell in the English. The basic word for "adultery" appears in Matthew there, but not in the clause itself. The verses shortly before, verses 27 and 28 contain "adultery", and so does verse 32, but it is where it says "makes her commit adultery" and "whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery", not where it says "except for unchastity".

So I've wondered about that passage myself while reading it. Maybe it means that the marriage itself is not right, that the marriage itself is the instance of unchastity. That would mean that it is legally a marriage in some way, yet it really isn't, so that it is really fornication, in which case divorce isn't really what it normally would be. So of course divorcing her would not "make(s) her to commit adultery", since she wouldn't have been married, so it won't be adultery.

And I know you are just asking about this, and not fighting your faith!

I think this is worth thinking about, and trying to understand what it says. I myself keep finding it requires a hypothesis on my part to decide what it says, so I've never felt I can arrive at a clear conclusion.

Just to share some history of my thoughts, when I was younger I had wondered if that clause was there to talk about what if he went into the wedding night and found out she was not as advertised, so to speak, and so wanted to ditch her. It had seemed possible to me back then on account of the crazy passage they have in the old testament about the parents producing the bloodied bedsheets when a man made that type of accusation.

I tried to respond to this two days ago but it wouldn't go through.

No, I don't think neither Luke nor Matthew was lying at all. That's why I am leaning towards Matthew as repeating it fully and Luke as omitting a bit. In that case, they were both comletely truthful.

As unchastity and fornication was mentioned, "immorality" was the only word mention in both Matthew 5 and 19 in the Catholic Action Edition from the 1950's. Immorality is broad. And although the assumption is adultery, it doesn't necessarily have to be adultery. An immoral act could involve many things.

The reason there are so many denominations is because everyone interprets everything differently . . . and there is so much to interpret. I'm happy to put that responsibility on the Church.