Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments. [CATHOLIC CAUCUS]

Catholic Divorce: The Deception of Annulments is a collection of essays by theologians, historians, and Sociologists who critically examine the Catholic Church's teaching and practice on divorce, annulments, and remarriage. The book opens with a brief essay by Pierre Hegy in which he describes why so many Catholics have become disillusioned with the church's position on these issues. He suggests that the chief reason why 80-90 percent of divorced Catholics simply ignore the annulment process and marry outside the church is because they regard the practice of annulments as deceitful. Because the grounds for an annulment have become so broad that practically anyone who applies for one can obtain it, many observers now regard annulments as "virtual divorces." After all, the same grounds used for divorce in a civil court have "become grounds for the nonexistence of marriage in an ecclesiastical court" (p. 23). To add to the deceit, many couples who receive annulments do so believing that their marriage was, in fact, sacramentally valid -- that the marital bond did exist but that, over time, it began to break down. These couples, understandably, choose not to disclose this part of the story to marriage tribunals so that they can qualify for an annulment.

Perhaps what is most problematic with the practice of annulments, according to Hegy, is that they often fail to deliver the kind of healing and renewal that so many divorced Catholics seek in the process. Nowhere is this illustrated more vividly than in the second chapter, which presents a series of testimonies by Catholics who have either gone through the annulment process or decided, for a variety of reasons, not to. One woman, for example, reports having become disillusioned by the annulment process when the diocesan tribunal hearing her case seemed to trivialize the spiritual conversion that accompanied her divorce by asking "intimate details about our sex life" instead of asking "Where did you find God in all of this?" (p. 39). Yet another woman tells of feeling coerced by a monsignor not to report her whole story to the tribunal in order to create the illusion that the marriage bond did not exist "from the very beginning" (p. 30). In short, these stories reveal that the Church's current teaching and practice of annulments not only inflict emotional trauma, but in some cases, encourage deceit.

I am a Catholic and go to Mass... on occasion... and went to Catholic HS... I KNOW exactly what the rules are. And in both cases we have a CLEAR violation of the principals set forth by Our Lord in the Gospels. Adultery or other immoral acts would be the ONLY such allowed cases.

Your impeccable credentials in Catholic Moral Theology from you Catholic High School notwithstanding, I will point out that nowhere in the Catholic "rules" or even the Gospel are adultery or any acts committed after marriage considered to be grounds for either annulment or divorce. The following excerpt explains this common, primarily protestant, misinterpretation of the treatment of adultery in the scripture:

http://www.envoymagazine.com/backissues/4.5/ihaveaquestion.html

Q I understand the Church’s position on divorce. However, there is a phrase in the Bible where it says clearly that divorce is never right “except in the case of adultery.” In different translations, the word is not adultery, but something similar. I know there are other places that state divorce is never acceptable, and no exceptions are mentioned in those passages. I tried to quote to friends that divorce is never acceptable; however, my cousin showed me in four different common biblical translations the statement about “except for adultery” in the same verse. I have still never received a satisfactory explanation, although I have asked several priests.

A The passage you refer to is found twice in Matthew: 5:32 and 19:9. Effectively, Protestant interpreters and the Orthodox Church generally think it means that divorce, and remarriage, is allowed if the other spouse has been guilty of adultery. Now, first of all, whatever it says about divorce, I can see no mention of remarriage here. St. Paul does, though, and he explicitly forbids it in very solemn fashion in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11: “To the married I give this ruling, and this is not mine, but the Lord’s: a wife must not be separated from her husband — or, if she has already left him, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband — and a husband must not divorce his wife” (New Jerusalem Bible, emphasis added). Contrast this with the next passage, where St. Paul gives “instructions [which] are my own, not the Lord’s” (v. 12). Translators have always struggled with St. Matthew’s version, so though you have been shown four translations that say “except for adultery,” I could show you another five that render it differently: “except for unchastity” (RSV Catholic version and NRSV); “except for fornication” (Jerusalem Bible); “I am not speaking of an illicit marriage” (New Jerusalem Bible); “unless the marriage is unlawful” (New American Bible); “not in [the case of] an unlawful union” (The Alba House Gospels). Translation always includes interpretation.

“Except for fornication” might be the most literally accurate translation; the last three, though they constitute something of a paraphrase, best indicate what it means. In other words, “except in the case of concubinage.” The respected Jerome Biblical Commentary thinks this is the most convincing and probable meaning.

There are at least three strong points in favor of this interpretation, and I think they are hard to argue with. First of all, an “exception” would be completely at odds with Jesus’ argument: God has joined man and woman in marriage, so man may not undo that union. He would be supporting the very exception he was criticizing!

Second, the parallel texts in Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18) make no such exception, nor does St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. They would hardly have ignored such an important exception, if it were one. Indeed, as we have seen, St. Paul explicitly contradicts it. Sacred Scripture is harmonious, and cannot contradict itself.

Third, the word used by Matthew (porneia) actually means “prostitution” or “unchastity” in a general sense. Though it could be translated “adultery,” this would be a very unlikely, awkward and rather nonsensical translation, since it would have Jesus saying that “he who dismisses his wife, except for adultery, makes her commit adultery.” In other words, as the Jerome Biblical Commentary puts it, He would be saying, “The divorced wife commits adultery unless she has already committed adultery.” Certainly wouldn’t get any style marks in Creative Writing 101.

Moreover, the specific term for adultery (moicheia) is used in the same passage (and everyone translates it “adultery”): “anyone who divorces his wife, except for porneia, commits moicheia” (Matt. 5:32). So you would have to say that “except for adultery” is actually the least likely translation.

You wrote:

“If something so simple can’t be taught by your priests, then maybe you should find another church with real priests, because your whole congregation must know NOTHING about the entire Catholic Faith, which is vastly more complicated to learn than marriage.”

You seem to be extremely ignorant. There is no problem with my priests. My parish, in fact, is perhaps the best catechized in the country. Not a single couple there uses birth control - that fact is plain to see by the enormous number of children. It is a Latin Mass community and, quite frankly, we are simply better catechized on these issues than others. I am not exaggerating in the least. I was talking about a couple I know who did not have the luxury of going to my parish. I don’t mind discussing this with you, by I suggest you eschew your obvious ignorance on this subject or my parish or congregation.

You wrote:

“I have yet to see you post anything worth reading.”

Your opinion has proved to be less than reliable.

“At least I posted two threads on thought provoking articles by people of knowledge an the subject.”

No, not really.

“Others have contributed comments and information to the threads, while all you’ve done is complain about the mere MENTION of the subject, and make puerile excuses like “they didn’t know about the sacrament”.”

You are simply being dishonest. I posted information. Go back and look at my first posts in the earlier thread. Please note how you apparently refused to deal with what was posted.

“Sounds to me like your are taking this subject quite personal.”

No, but you certainly seem to be. I mentioned a case of a couple I knew of and you resorted to insulting my entire parish congregation (which was follish in any case since I wasn’t even talking about my parish). I am not only not taking this “personal” but you’re making it personal.

“Or prove it (Oh, that’s right you can’t).”

The fatal flaw in that argument is this: While it may be impossible for one person to offer a person like you enough evidence to overcome a tightly closed mind, God can prove His existence to anyone. And He does, as it pleases Him.

“Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean the supernatural is behind it.”

My, you God-haters come up with some odd theories to explain away knowledge of God.

People believe in God because they do understand something, not because they don’t. Others, of course, have empirical knowledge of God’s existence, so “understanding” doesn’t bear directly on the question for them.

“If it helps you get around your fear of death, that is good.”

So, can you imagine not “getting around” the fear of death, but simply not experiencing it?

“I am happy for you.”

Oooh, you big, fat fibber.

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.