Posted on 06/05/2004 9:44:25 PM PDT by Bai Mac.
One may ask, against whom or what must we defend matrimony? There has been much publicity about defending matrimony against those who want to recognize same sex unions, but there is another force which, as yet, is not being properly challenged. This web log is about the other challenge: DIVORCE. Pope John Paul II, stated in Novo Millennio, ".. this fundamental institution [the family] is experiencing a radical and widespread crisis. In the Christian view of marriage, the relationship between a man and a woman — a mutual and total bond, unique and indissoluble — is part of God's original plan, obscured throughout history by our 'hardness of heart', but which Christ came to restore to its pristine splendour, disclosing what had been God's will 'from the beginning' (Mt 19:8). ... . On this point the Church cannot yield to cultural pressures, no matter how widespread and even militant they may be. Instead, it is necessary to ensure that ... Christian families show convincingly that it is possible to live marriage fully in keeping with God's plan and with the true good of the human person — of the spouses, and of the children who are more fragile." (sec. 47) Militant forces are attacking the indissolubility of matrimony. Militant, by definition, means aggressive or hostile in attitude or actions, especially in defense of a cause; waging war; fighting; warring; and showing a fighting disposition without self-seeking. These forces which insist that divorce is the natural solution to marital discord, are not pretty. Defending against them is not a simple task. However, as Christ's followers, we are also called to be a militant movement. Pope Paul VIexplained, “[The Second Vatican Council] ratified and extended the contribution that, for more than a century, the movements of the Catholic laity have been offering to the Church, pilgrim and militant.” We all know that in the end, Christ's forces win, but in the meantime, some of us will be called to the front lines or to raise the battle banner and cry, "We Must Defend Matrimony from the Attacking Forces of Divorce!"
Let the weblog of the ongoing battle against divorce begin!
Thanks!
"I am familiar with a couple who like you were in charge of a highly-visible Catholic apostalate."
Since you haven't provided any further public information(obviously - and very wisely - not wishing to spread scandal), I am wondering whether were you thinking of the Kronzer family who became involved in the Medjugorje fraud.
If you were thinking of another family, I appreciate your desire to keep the details to yourself.
The Kronzer foundation is mentioned in the following report:
http://www.inatoday.com/saving%20the%20kids%2042704.htm
In case you need more details on the fraud being perpetrated in Medjugorje, here's a thorough account:
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com/
However, I did find this quote from Monsignor Kevin Quirk, chief judge of the New York Marriage Tribunal:
"Yes, it is necessary, in the Dioceses of the United States, to have received a civil decree of divorce before one can apply for [a Declaration of Nullity]. This is done for two reasons. First, the Tribunal is required to ensure that the parties have exhausted every attempt at reconciliation and that the common life between them has utterly failed before it considers the validity of their marriage. Second, the Tribunal must protect itself from 'alienation of affection' suits or defamation suits lodged by one of the parties."
No diocesan tribunal will even consider a petition for annulment without a civil divorce.
If misplaced civil divorces cause scandal, how does one explain Monsignor Kevin Quirk's comments in relation to this statement from TWO Canon Law Faculties, along with Can. 1151 "Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them"? If Divine law states that my marriage is indissoluable through sickness and health, in good times and bad till death do us part, doesn't my husband's demand for a civil divorce violate these precepts?
Apparently, this authorization to approach civil court for divorce must come from the Bishop, not a judicial vicar. Might the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued a U.S.A. decree which universally gave all spouses, including my husband, unconditional authorization to approach civil court for any reason? Have you ever learned of such a decree; is it documented and approved by some Vatican Office?
I'm not aware of any such authorization being a canonical requirement here in the States.
Might the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have issued a U.S.A. decree which universally gave all spouses, including my husband, unconditional authorization to approach civil court for any reason?
Perhaps. But I'm not aware of any.
Have you ever learned of such a decree; is it documented and approved by some Vatican Office?
No. All I know is that, as an Advocate, I was forbidden from discussing annulments with anyone who had not obtained a civil divorce.
It may. But the civil action is completely separate from the Church action regarding nullity.
My suggestion is that you find a priest or someone from your local tribual to give you some guidance.
Is your husband amenable to any kind of intervention? If he is, you should pursue that.
I will keep you in my prayers.
The civil court doesn't care if a couple has a church marraige. An annulment investigation before a civil divorce would only determine if the couple has a Sacramental Marriage bond. If the couple were to be givin a church annulment, they would then have the status of being married according to the State law, while not having the status of being Sacramentaly married. Frankly, this combination is much less offensive to my moral sensabilities than the current procedure. If the court grants my husband his civil divorce, we'll no longer have the married status according to the State law, but we will still have the married status according to the Chruch Law; we are still Sacramentally husband and wife. The civil court can't revoke our obligations and rights as Catholics who are sacramentally married. My Catholic husband will have abondend me, while following the required procedures of the US tribunals. He will have denied our sons' their God-given right to an intact family and our sons know he's broken his Sacramental vow, All childern of Catholic divorce have this same observation and they don't care about complicated theology. Their hearts feel and knowTRUTH.
Frankly, if your husband obtained an annulment (the process takes about two years), I'm not sure why you would want to maintain the civil marriage.
Your husband obviously has hurt you deeply. I hope you're hashing your thoughts and feelings out with a trusted spritual advisor.
Readers might be confused and think you are saying the United States has a different Code of Canon Law than other parts of the World. Canon Law is the same for the whole world.
Not a different Code, but a different process.
Civil laws vary from country to country.
What is your point in debating this? I've told you what the procedure is, but you apparently don't like the procedure.
You need to take that up with your local bishop, not me.
What if the question were addressed to my husband, "If before going to civil divorce court, you petitioned your tribunal for an investigation of the nullity of your marriage, and you didn't obtain the annulment because you have a valid Sacramental marriage, and your wife has not abused you or your children spiritually or physically, why would you want to obtain a civil divorce?" If annulments are only granted to couples who have invalid sacramental marriages, what does the church say to families which ARE sacramentally married, when one spouse walks out and sues for divorce?
If I wanted to abort my baby, the Church has a fairly loud voice trying to prevent me from killing my baby thorough abortion. But where is the Church's authoritative voice when my husband (who's under the influence of the forces of divorce) is breaking our son's hearts when he destroys their intact home through divorce?
Many states have parental notification laws for minors who want to get abortions. All states have county notification laws, which require couples to notify the court, meet certain requirements, and obtain an approved marriage license application, before the couple can be sacramentally married. What would happen if there was a Church notification law, requiring spouses to notify the Bishop, meet certain requirements and obtain a written decree from the Bishop, before either party could approach civil court demanding a divorce?
My point in debate is to ask questions? I know you didn't create the process, but you do have more experience in this matter than me so you do have a valuable perspective to add to the discussion. I'm grateful for your participation in this blog.
Unless the civil court required it, such a law would be unenforceable.
If annulments are only granted to couples who have invalid sacramental marriages, what does the church say to families which ARE sacramentally married, when one spouse walks out and sues for divorce?
This is one of the greatest tragedies of modern life, when one partner decides to leave a marriage. If your husband will not work on reconciliation, he likely has another woman lined up.
Life is certainly not fair, Bai Mac. Divorce destroys lives and dreams and hopes. And I'm sorry this is happening to you.
You wrote: "This is no different from our obligation to obey and respect our parents, or a wife's obligation to obey and respect her husband. Of course we have an obligation to do so." Based on your comments, is it accurate to assume that you are confidently disagree with our Pope's teaching regarding rights and obligations of spouses? He interprets "Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph. 5: 21) differently than you do, in his teaching Dignitatem (The Dignity of Women) and his Theology of the Body.
Eight-hundred years ago, there was likely no teaching condemning slavery. Bishops, Priests, and Catholics may all have owned slaves.
"But if his master gives him [the slave] a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall remain the master's property and the man shall leave alone. ... "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do." (Exodus 31:4,7 )
"But what does the scripture say? "Drive out the slave woman and her son! For the son of the slave woman shall not share the inheritance with the son" of the freeborn." (Gal. 4:30)
Slaves had the obligation to obey and respect their owners. How do you reconcile that church teaching can't change, when even the bible condoned slavery while church teaching from the last 200 years condemn it. What changed? These apparent inconsistencies never concerned me because I trust God guided the Magisterium in 1930 as much as he does in 1988. Truth doesn't contradict itself.
If you are one of those husbands who believes wives are obligated to obey their husbands in all things but sin, without recongnizing that the husband has equal dignity with his wife and she has equal authority over him, then you appear to be contradictng the magisterium. Just as the culture and the church recognized that slavery was a grave offense against nature, immoral, and a gross disregard for the dignity of the human person, one sided domination of a husband over his wife is equally offensive.
I recognize that this is a tangent from the purpose of this weblog, but evidently there is also a need to defend marriage against distortions of Church teaching which lead to wife abuse. If I am misinterpreting what you mean, please advise me.
Hi Bai! I'm Ed's (old and tired's) wife Fran. I've been following this thread closely as I am a great fan of the Mary Foundation and your father-in-law and I have to admit I was surprised at the vehemence of your response to Max about equality in marriage. Let me say from the outset that I'm no theologian and I'm not familiar with all the writings of the current or past popes, I'm just a Catholic wife (47 years) and mother of 11 and I couldn't disagree with your above statement more.
This is not to say a good husband lords every blessed decision over his wife's head. I certainly hope you don't feel bossed around. A wife is entitled to a degree of freedom in her home especially regards the house and the children and her husband is obligated to back her up with the children - "Your mother wants you home fifteen minutes before dinnertime. See that you're here."
But it is confusing to the children to believe there are two heads of the house. Children will quickly sense the tension and play Mommy and Daddy against each other.
Have you ever met a happily married couple where the wife didn't defer to her husband's wishes on important matters? I haven't. Nor have I ever met a happy couple where the husband didn't take his wife's feelings into account. You've certainly heard the expression that the woman is the heart of the home and the man is the head. Our (women's) judgement is so often clouded by emotion. I know you're an engineer and you've been trained to think logically, but all the education in the world cannot deprive you of your feminine (emotional) nature.
There is so much more I'd like to say to you, and if you were my daughter I surely would. But I've preached to you long enough. I will leave you with a quick link to a Q&A on EWTN's website on obedience in marriage:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=389537&Forums=12&Experts=0&Days=365&Author=&Keyword=wife&pgnu=1&groupnum=0
The whole slavery issue is certainly a tangent that I don't intend to get tangled up in. Suffice it to say that the straw man argument regarding slavery that you use is precisely the same argument used by every other group of dissidents who want to change a perennial moral teaching of the Church. It is used by homosexuals who want the Church to approve of sodomy and it is even used by those who want the Church to change her teaching on divorce.
Based on your comments, is it accurate to assume that you are confidently disagree with our Pope's teaching regarding rights and obligations of spouses?
I've already posted twice on this thread the fact that JPII says things about marriage that are in contradiction to 2000 years of Catholic teaching. And if he goes to great lengths to re-interpret Ephesians 5 differently than it has always been understood, is he also going to re-interpret all these other verses from the New Testament?
Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
1 Timothy 2
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
15 But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Titus 2
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good.
4 Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children,
5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
1 Peter 3
Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,
2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.
3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
4 Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.
5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,
6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
If you are one of those husbands who believes wives are obligated to obey their husbands in all things but sin, without recongnizing that the husband has equal dignity with his wife and she has equal authority over him, then you appear to be contradictng the magisterium.
I would not be contradicting the magisterium, since that is just what the magisterium has taught for 2000 years since the time of the apostles right up until our own lifetimes. You believe that Church teachings can change -- that is the very basis of all heresy and the most dangerous possible attack on the foundation of the Church. The belief that a teaching of the Church can change has been condemned as severely as possible by the magisterium many times. To claim that all new doctrines that contradict past teachings automatically supercede everything taught by Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium for 2000 years is the formula for making the Catholic Church into the homosexual-bishop-ordaining Anglican sect.
Here is the definitive teaching of the magisterium on the subject of whether wives have equal authority over their husbands, and the answer clearly is that they do not.
Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that "order of love," as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: "The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church."
The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected.
This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.
This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.
The only thing that I have EVER been told, or could ever find was about the system here in the US. That until the civil divorce, ALL marriages are assumed to be valid, and there is no need to look at the roots. And isn't that what the Holy Father JUST told the Roman Rota? That all marriages are to be PRESUMED to be VALID?
And honestly, it would make much more sense to ME, and may change the wording of the petitions and correspondence from the Tribunals if done differently! Anyone who petitions them NOW must sign a form stating that we believe our marriage null for .... reason from the beginning. I cannot sign such a paper anymore than I could sign civil papers agreeing to a civil divorce.
If the 'Church authorities' tell you something that is NOT Church teaching... easily found out by reading the actual documents, it is YOUR responsibility to learn the Truth, just as it was mine so very long ago. And it is even EASIER to do today than it was when I did the research.
YOU are ultimately held accountable to form your conscience by the actual Church teachings (ie, Catechism, Bible, Encyclicals, etc) to conform with the Church, NOT theologians, etc who differ from authentic Church teachings. Sorry, but when we meet HIM face to face, He will remind us of His Words below. And MY name is NOWHERE to be found in His Words... we are all called to be obedient. Our job is to get our spouse to Heaven, not 'be happy' here.. It is wonderful if the two go together, but we are called to serve Him, to follow Him. And HE says He hates divorce ...
No. I was a child during Vatican II. I knew nothing but what was taught to me and what I learned. There is no reason that anyone can misconstrue Catholic teaching on the subject unless deliberately LOOKING for ways to twist and shape their 'opinions' to that of the world's. My divorce even came after the 1983 changes in the Canon Law. I am not ignorant, and if I can read and find His Truth in our Church, so can anyone. Those who misconstrue are not seeking Truth, but a 'way out'.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.