Don't Anglicans accept divorce?


#1

It baffles me why Camilla could not marry Charles because she divorced her first husband. I thought Henry VIII left the Catholic Church and became head of the Church of England so he could remarry after divorcing his first wife, so I concluded Anglicans could remarry in their Church… Have I got it all wrong? :confused:

Alma


#2

I find myself perplexed as well, because I assumed the same.


#3

[quote=Alma]It baffles me why Camilla could not marry Charles because she divorced her first husband. I thought Henry VIII left the Catholic Church and became head of the Church of England so he could remarry after divorcing his first wife, so I concluded Anglicans could remarry in their Church… Have I got it all wrong? :confused:

Alma
[/quote]

Actually, when Henry VIII left the Catholic Church so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, he wrote the rules of the Anglican Church so that while HE could get a divorce, nobody else could. I don’t know what changes have been made since then, but I’m pretty sure your average Episcopalian in this country can divorce and remarry.

If I may be a little bold, the situation with Charles and Camilla looks to me a typical Anglican/Episcopalian compromise. They didn’t get married in the church, but after the civil wedding (so I am told) there was some sort of “blessing of their vows” by a bishop. How this differs from a church wedding I do not know. My take on it (as an ex-Episcopalian) is that the ceremony was enough like a church wedding that people who wanted them to have a church wedding are satisfied, while the people who did not want them to have a church wedding can maintain that they didn’t have one. Perhaps some Anglican brethren watching this thread can clarify matters.

  • Liberian

#4

You all may have to protect me from enraged Anglicans, but that rule seems to have been invented for Henry VIII, & uninvented for the rest of the royal family.
Apparently, the heir to the throne is not supposed to either be divorced, nor to marry someone who is divorced. I can only suppose that since Charles is divorced makes it OK for him to marry Camilla. (I don’t think this makes any sense, either, so please don’t kill the messenger).
What really pains me in this whole mess, frankly, is that a very beautiful young woman named Diana had to suffer Charles’ infidelity–eventually leading, at least partially, to her early death, because of these two selfish immoral people. Who now appear to be going to “live happily ever after”.:mad:


#5

The problem I have noted is that Anglicans are somewhat inconsistent on many issues. This is one of them.

Henry VIII had a point to make when he was pursuing the anullment of his marriage to CoA. The Pope granted anullments left and right to the leaders of those countries around him, but would not grant an anullment to Henry VIII.

In fact, it was odd that the Pope let them marry in the first place, given the fact that he had to give them a fairly strange dispensation - off the top of my head I can’t recall exactly what it was, but I want to say that it was because she was his brother’s wife. (Does someone else remember?)

At any rate, they should never have married, but when the English clergy sent an endorsement of an anullment to Rome for the Pope’s approval, he - of course - denied it, for as much a set of political reasons as anything else.

Oh well!

In modern practice, Anglicans get divorced and remarried in the Church all the time. I know an american Episcopalian priest who has been married now four times, three of them ending in divorce. What happened to the whole ‘husband of ONE wife’ thing from 1 Timothy???

Rob+


#6

[quote=Alma]It baffles me why Camilla could not marry Charles because she divorced her first husband. I thought Henry VIII left the Catholic Church and became head of the Church of England so he could remarry after divorcing his first wife, so I concluded Anglicans could remarry in their Church… Have I got it all wrong? :confused:

Alma
[/quote]

I was just as confused about that as you were.


#7

Two confusions:

Henry wanted an annulment, not a divorce.

Second, the C of E is different from the Episcopal Church. The C of E did not allow any remarriage (in church) of divorced persons until recently, and is still reluctant to grant permission for such things. The Episcopal Church started allowing remarriage several decades ago–I think it was in the 60s, or maybe the 70s. And as you say it happens all the time now.

There’s no inconsistency here, though (with regard to the C of E) there is nuance and what the Orthodox would call “economia.”

Edwin


#8

[quote=FrRobSST]The problem I have noted is that Anglicans are somewhat inconsistent on many issues. This is one of them.

Henry VIII had a point to make when he was pursuing the anullment of his marriage to CoA. The Pope granted anullments left and right to the leaders of those countries around him, but would not grant an anullment to Henry VIII.

Rob+
[/quote]

If I remeber my history right the annulment wasn’t issued because the Italian territories surrounding the Papal States were either allied with Spain or occupied by Spanish troops. To dis the Spanish by nullifying Catherine’s marriage would have been to invite invasion.

Didymus


#9

[quote=FrRobSST]Henry VIII had a point to make when he was pursuing the anullment of his marriage to CoA. The Pope granted anullments left and right to the leaders of those countries around him, but would not grant an anullment to Henry VIII.
[/quote]

Nonsense. Henry VIII was not granted an annulment because he had no valid grounds for one.

[quote=FrRobSST] In fact, it was odd that the Pope let them marry in the first place, given the fact that he had to give them a fairly strange dispensation - off the top of my head I can’t recall exactly what it was, but I want to say that it was because she was his brother’s wife. (Does someone else remember?)
[/quote]

Catherine of Aragon was married to Henry’s older brother when they were both still children. Arthur died before they consummated the marriage. Because Henry VII (their father) was a greedy man he did not want to return the Spanish princess or her dowery to Spain. Therefore, Henry VIII applied for and received a dispensation to marry the widow of his older brother. A dispensation was necessary and possible because this impediment was a canonical impediment NOT a diriment impediment.

[quote=FrRobSST] At any rate, they should never have married, but when the English clergy sent an endorsement of an anullment to Rome for the Pope’s approval, he - of course - denied it, for as much a set of political reasons as anything else.
[/quote]

Again, not true. The petition for a decree of nullity was denied because there were no grounds. If it had been proven that there was an impediment of affinity, an annulment would have been granted. However, Catherine of Aragon’s sworn testimony stated otherwise.

The pope cannot annul a valid marriage, and Henry’s was valid.


#10

[quote=1ke]Nonsense. Henry VIII was not granted an annulment because he had no valid grounds for one.

Catherine of Aragon was married to Henry’s older brother when they were both still children. Arthur died before they consummated the marriage. Because Henry VII (their father) was a greedy man he did not want to return the Spanish princess or her dowery to Spain. Therefore, Henry VIII applied for and received a dispensation to marry the widow of his older brother. A dispensation was necessary and possible because this impediment was a canonical impediment NOT a diriment impediment.

Again, not true. The petition for a decree of nullity was denied because there were no grounds. If it had been proven that there was an impediment of affinity, an annulment would have been granted. However, Catherine of Aragon’s sworn testimony stated otherwise.

The pope cannot annul a valid marriage, and Henry’s was valid.
[/quote]

Greetings, 1ke,

I’m violating one of my own rules, but this is one of the better posts I’ve seen on the issue of Henry’s search of an decree of nullity. I can’t resist.

You have stated well the basic, standard RC position. But it is a complicated issue, as I’m sure you know.

First, it was, of course, Henry VII who petitioned for a dispensation for Henry *fils * and Catherine to wed. And it seems indeed that Catherine and Arthur had not consumated their marriage. At least that was Catherine’s position from the first. Which, however raises the potential issue of an impediment from the justice of public honesty, as a special case of an impediment of affinity. Which was not directly dispensed by Julius. Henry did have a case, though the one he tried to make was not the stronges.

And the system was designed to function, both to maintain the sacarment, and to allow the making and unmaking of marriages , as points of statecraft. What Hank asked for was not unusual. Look at his sister’s quest for a decree of nullity, just before Hank submitted hs own causa. Flimsy. And she got it.

It is a fascinating and complicated subject. Scarisbrick’s bio of Henry has a good discussion, and Kelly’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII reveals the staggering complexity of it all.

GKC


#11

[quote=GKC]Greetings, 1ke,

I’m violating one of my own rules, but this is one of the better posts I’ve seen on the issue of Henry’s search of an decree of nullity. I can’t resist.

You have stated well the basic, standard RC position. But it is a complicated issue, as I’m sure you know.

First, it was, of course, Henry VII who petitioned for a dispensation for Henry *fils * and Catherine to wed. And it seems indeed that Catherine and Arthur had not consumated their marriage. At least that was Catherine’s position from the first. Which, however raises the potential issue of an impediment from the justice of public honesty, as a special case of an impediment of affinity. Which was not directly dispensed by Julius. Henry did have a case, though the one he tried to make was not the stronges.

And the system was designed to function, both to maintain the sacarment, and to allow the making and unmaking of marriages , as points of statecraft. What Hank asked for was not unusual. Look at his sister’s quest for a decree of nullity, just before Hank submitted hs own causa. Flimsy. And she got it.

It is a fascinating and complicated subject. Scarisbrick’s bio of Henry has a good discussion, and Kelly’s MATRIMONIAL TRIALS OF HENRY VIII reveals the staggering complexity of it all.

GKC
[/quote]

Yes, it was quite complex and books have been written ad nauseum. I do realize I simplified a bit. However, despite the fact that Henry VII applied for the dispensation, Henry VIII chose to move forward with the marriage after Henry VII’s death as an adult (18 yrs old) and therefore, obviously had no issue with the dispensation at the time. Only later, when she could produce no sons and he was smitten by a certain Anne, did he try to go back on his position.


#12

Read the catechism (1601-1666) for information on marriage.

Here is a link on the grounds for nullity:

landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/grounds_annul.htm

Either way the Church said “NO” to Henry VIII. In his anger he became disobedient to the Bride of Christ (and thus to Christ) and founded his own church in England so he could divorce his wife.


#13

An interesting footnote: When Henry V111 married Anne Bullen, his divorce had not yet been granted so he was, in fact, a bigamist. That made his daughter, Elizabeth a bastard. This cost many Catholics their lives at the time, as they would not accept the gross manipulation of the law.


#14

[quote=maklavan]An interesting footnote: When Henry V111 married Anne Bullen, his divorce had not yet been granted so he was, in fact, a bigamist. That made his daughter, Elizabeth a bastard. This cost many Catholics their lives at the time, as they would not accept the gross manipulation of the law.
[/quote]

Historically, that’s certainly the RC view, and Anne was pregnant avant le mot, in any case. What is interesting (history often is) was that by dallying with Anne Boleyn’s older sister earlier (as rumored), Hank had probably established a diriment impediment of affinity wih Anne, and would have required a dispensation in any case.

GKC


#15

[quote=1ke]Yes, it was quite complex and books have been written ad nauseum. I do realize I simplified a bit. However, despite the fact that Henry VII applied for the dispensation, Henry VIII chose to move forward with the marriage after Henry VII’s death as an adult (18 yrs old) and therefore, obviously had no issue with the dispensation at the time. Only later, when she could produce no sons and he was smitten by a certain Anne, did he try to go back on his position.
[/quote]

True. Though he did renounce the betrothal and the annulment, a couple of years before he went through with it all. And it was the lineage issue (which preceded his besotment with la Boleyn), and the lady herself, that stirred him to action. The role his conscience played, with respect to the Levitical prohibition, and his inability to produce a legitimate male heir, are the sort of things that make history interesting.

And it takes those books to get us deep into history.

GKC


#16

[quote=GKC]True. Though he did renounce the betrothal and the annulment, a couple of years before he went through with it all. And it was the lineage issue (which preceded his besotment with la Boleyn), and the lady herself, that stirred him to action. The role his conscience played, with respect to the Levitical prohibition, and his inability to produce a legitimate male heir, are the sort of things that make history interesting.

And it takes those books to get us deep into history.

GKC
[/quote]

Indeed.

I particularly like Hillaire Belloc’s label of “The English Accident” with reference to the split from the CC in England. His analysis in his books How the Reformation Happened and The Characters of the Reformation is very good and I think cuts through a lot of the Protestant/Catholic rhetoric and gets to the heart of how on earth such a split could have happened in England as well as elsewhere-- and why Englad was quite different from all the rest.


#17

[quote=1ke]Indeed.

I particularly like Hillaire Belloc’s label of “The English Accident” with reference to the split from the CC in England. His analysis in his books How the Reformation Happened and The Characters of the Reformation is very good and I think cuts through a lot of the Protestant/Catholic rhetoric and gets to the heart of how on earth such a split could have happened in England as well as elsewhere-- and why Englad was quite different from all the rest.
[/quote]

English accident, indeed. You can’t get up early enough to have a higher opinion of Belloc than I do. I’ve been collecting him for over 40 years. I love him (ever heard him singing?). And you can add his multi-volume history of England (where he is a little harsher), and his compilation of writings on Elizabeth to those you mention. Even his Cranmer can teach a thing or two. But for all that, and love him as I do, his is not a balanced view of the period. I wouldn’t miss him for the world, though.

GKC


#18

[quote=Alma]It baffles me why Camilla could not marry Charles because she divorced her first husband. I thought Henry VIII left the Catholic Church and became head of the Church of England so he could remarry after divorcing his first wife, so I concluded Anglicans could remarry in their Church… Have I got it all wrong? :confused:

Alma
[/quote]

I think it is a problem more because he is a royal and wants to be King. Once he would be King, then I think he could do it. Not sure, just guessing. Where are our UK firends? They must know even if they are Catholic.


#19

The C of E does not generally remarry divorced people (I believe it does make exceptions), but it doesn’t refuse communion to people who have gotten a civil marriage. Myself, I think this makes sense. In a way it’s a stricter position than the Catholic one. I also think the Orthodox approach has a lot to be said for it.

Edwin


#20

[quote=GKC]Historically, that’s certainly the RC view, and Anne was pregnant avant le mot, in any case. What is interesting (history often is) was that by dallying with Anne Boleyn’s older sister earlier (as rumored), Hank had probably established a diriment impediment of affinity wih Anne, and would have required a dispensation in any case.

GKC
[/quote]

He didn’t only dally with her She gave him a child!

A film that covers all this is "Anne of the Thousand Days."
It starred Richard Burton and genevieve Bujoldt.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.