Posted on 07/31/2014 3:54:29 PM PDT by NYer
Many of us know of couples that have divorced. Some may be Catholic couples that divorced, remarried, and are able to receive the Sacraments with no problems because they received an annulment. Other Catholic couples we may know divorced but were told they could not remarry as they were not given an annulment. This may seem confusing and harsh of the Church, especially if the reason for separation is the infidelity of only one spouse. One of my students put the situation this way: it is as if the Church condemns some people to a lifetime of loneliness because their first marriage failed, even though it is not that spouse’s fault.
The Council of Trent states that there are “many reasons a separation may take place between husband and wife” and a couple ought not be condemned for such an act. An indeterminate separation of a married couple is a legitimate act and sometimes necessary as in the case of abuse. This article will concentrate specifically on divorce and remarriage and how it is handled in the Bible and the Church.
In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses allowed an Israelite to write a certificate of divorce, send his wife away, and marry another. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches that this practice is no longer to be followed—divorce and remarriage are adultery (Matthew 5:32; 19:7-9). Today, the Roman Catholic Church has a process of issuing an annulment, properly called a decree of nullity. This process evaluates the validity or non-validity of a marriage. At first glance we seem to have three contradictory teachings on divorce and marriage: 1) Moses allows divorce, 2) Christ forbids it, and 3) the Roman Catholic Church decides whether they will recognize a marriage as valid or not based on a formal investigation.
The word “annulment” never appears in the English translation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The section handling annulments is titled “Cases to Declare the Nullity of Marriage.” Declaring a marriage null does not mean that it was valid and is no longer valid from a specific date going forward. Instead, it means that there never was a marriage. It asserts that a couple never married, ever. So it would be a grave error to state that it is a “Catholic divorce.”
A close friend of mine, a Catholic priest, gave me some very good points to remember about this topic. 1) The Church does not issue annulments; it issues decrees of nullity. 2) The choice of the tribunal cannot make a valid thing invalid; the decree simply declares that which is reality. 3) A marriage is either valid or invalid from its beginning. 4) The Church’s tribunal is primarily concerned about the moment of consent (the wedding day) when evaluating marriages. The course of one’s marriage may be considered for proofs of an invalid vow but are not the basis for declaring a marriage invalid.
According to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, if a man wanted to divorce his wife he could issue a bill of divorce that stated “You are free to marry again” and would send her away. There were two main schools of thought during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry that interpreted Deuteronomy and the possible grounds for divorce. The Shammai school believed that divorce was only appropriate in the case of an unchaste wife, while the Hillel school believed anything could be grounds for divorce—even a badly cooked dinner (The Mishnah: A New Translation, Gittin 9:10). Rabbi Aqiba went so far as to state that even a man’s desire for a prettier woman was sufficient grounds for divorce (Gittin 9:10).
St. Jerome (340-420 AD)
When the Pharisees question Jesus in Matthew 19 about divorce, they were not asking him the question to find out if the practice itself was valid. Instead, they wanted to know under what circumstances one was able to divorce his wife; only in cases of infidelity or even when a wife burns dinner.
Jesus responded that Moses did not allow for divorce because he believed it to be moral in some circumstances. Moses allowed divorce because of how sinful the people had become—it was a concession to their extreme sinfulness (Matthew 19:3-9). In fact, St. Jerome wrote in his Commentary on Matthew that Moses was preventing murder by allowing divorce as men were killing their wives in order to marry another.
In Matthew 19:8, Jesus teaches that “from the beginning [divorce] was not so.” Christ calls us to remember the unveiling of Eve to Adam in Genesis before Original Sin. Upon seeing Eve, Adam cries out “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). The two become one flesh at that point, and there is an inseparable nature to their marital union. The Code of Canon Law teaches that the only event which is able to dissolve a valid marriage is death. What is exchanged in marriage between the couple is not merely a promise that must be fulfilled, but each gives themself entirely to their spouse.
The process of the Catholic Church in determining the validity of a marriage is based on the requirements for making a vow. The most important being consent; without it a marriage cannot exist. Consent is an “act of the will” where spouses mutually give and accept each other. A person must have knowledge of what they are doing and have reached psychic maturity in understanding what a marriage is; thus, a child is incapable of marriage. Lack of freedom leads to an invalid vow as well.
In summary, divorce was allowed by Moses in Deuteronomy due to the extreme sinfulness of the men. Jesus teaches that divorce and remarriage is adultery, plain and simple. From the beginning of creation, God designed marriage as a lifelong bond. The annulment process of the Catholic Church evaluates whether a marriage has properly occurred. If it is found that a person was incapable of contracting a marriage for some reason, be it a mental disorder, fear, or lack of freedom, then a marriage never existed and a Decree of Nullity is issued. Unfortunately, some people enter into valid marriages, but regret doing so or are unhappy with the way the marriage turns out. This does not invalidate a marriage. It may be no one’s fault that a marriage does not work out, but that does not mean that a true marriage does not exist.
a sacramental marriage as opposed to a natural marriage. A declaration of nullity is a ruling that there was never a sacrament. It's a fine distinction but it is there.
YEP.
The devil's in the details, innit?
1) Matter- for a valid marriage you must have a man and woman, and only one of each.
2) Form- Vows need to be exchanged promising fidelity to each other.
3)Minister- In marriage the couple ministers the sacrament to each other. The priest is there to make sure the proper form is used.
4) Intent- This is the tricky one. Do both members intend the marriage to be sacramental? Do they intend to be faithful? Are they both of sound mind and are they giving their full and willing consent to this or is it under duress? Are both mature enough to give consent?
If one of these four is missing there may be grounds for a cert of nullity to be issued.
Hey I think the rules don’t apply for Rich and Kings
Ask Kennedy or Henry VIII
It does if as far as I am concerned. If you kept your vows and your spouse shattered theirs and thereafter kicked you to the curb for someone else, I think they invalidated the marriage. The contracts with both spouse and God were severed and invalidated if not completly distroyed.
If you maintained your commitment to your spouse and your compact with God intact, I see no reason in the world why you should not remarry (be a LOT more selective next time).
To punish someone for the sins of another is not the Christan way nor in keeping with the fundamentals of reason.
What Kennedy?
Teddy and a whole bunch of the Grandchildren and GGrandchildren of Joe.
“NO it is a certification that a valid sacramental marriage did not occur.”
So then, for the sake of argument, what you are saying indirectly, is that the only way one can know you have a true sacramental marriage is to have had the marriage sacrament and subsequently sought and been denied an annulment, thereby confirming that the sacrament actually occurred.
Otherwise you have know actual way of knowing if your marriage is of the sacramental variety.
I think this may postpone a lot of honeymoons!
Annulment is an earthly construct.
My wife’s ex was Catholic. When they were going together he went to Mass. From the moment they were married he never went with her to Mass again. Their child was baptised Catholic and he told the priest he would raise the child in the faith. He never went to any of her cathecism classes. Not the first one. He never went with her and her mother to Mass. His reply when asked why, was “the Catholic Church is not telling me what to do”. After 10 years of living with this character she filed for a divorce. I met her 10 years later and she applied for a annulment. It took 2 years to get, many statements of witnesses that attested to the fact that he led her on and had no intention of living like a Catholic. The final straw was when he ignored the statement asked by the tribunal for his side of the story.
Just think of all the other false annulments that have been granted in the U.S.!
St. Monica
The circumstances of St. Monica’s life could have made her a nagging wife, a bitter daughter-in-law and a despairing parent, yet she did not give way to any of these temptations. Although she was a Christian, her parents gave her in marriage to a pagan, Patricius, who lived in her hometown of Tagaste in North Africa. Patricius had some redeeming features, but he had a violent temper and was licentious. Monica also had to bear with a cantankerous mother-in-law who lived in her home. Patricius criticized his wife because of her charity and piety, but always respected her. Monica’s prayers and example finally won her husband and mother-in-law to Christianity. Her husband died in 371, one year after his baptism.
Teddy got an annulment because he said he never intended to be faithful to his wife and his wife went along with the story. But Teddy DID NOT get remarried in the Catholic Church.
But, the Church DID give a Catholic funeral, fit for royalty, for the non-repentent adulterous baby- butcherer. And is was Sean Cardinal O'Malley who threw that lavish extravaganza. O'Malley is a current member of the Pope's Gang o' Eight.
“for the non-repentent adulterous baby- butcherer”
But there is always the chance that Teddy went to confession and his confessor was O’Malley!! Only the shadow knows, because a priest is under no obligation to tell anyone who might have gone to confession.
Stop relying on "the shadows'.
Sounds like most if not all the Kennedy family does indeed qualify...
Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.
The Popes have always been there for Ted, from his first Communion by Pope Pius XII at age 7, to Pope Benedict XVI blessing him on his death bed in a letter, but he had to settle for a Cardinal to perform his first marriage and a Cardinal for his funeral.
He is Catholic royalty.
Here is part of the letter he wrote to his Pope.
““Most Holy Father,
I asked President Obama to personally hand deliver this letter to you. As a man of deep faith himself, he understands how important my Roman Catholic faith is to me and I am so deeply grateful to him.”
(snip)
“I am 77-years-old and preparing for the next passage of life.
I’ve been blessed to be part of a wonderful family and both my parents, specifically my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives.
That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that i have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith I have tried to right my past.
I want you to know, your Holiness, that in my 50 years of elected office I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I’ve worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I’ve opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a U.S. Senator.
I also want you to know that even though I am ill, I am committed to do everything I can to achieve access to health care for everyone in my country. This has been the political cause of my life.
I believe in a conscience protection for Catholics in the health field and I’ll continue to advocate for it as my colleagues in the Senate and I work to develop an overall national health policy that guarantees health care for everyone.
I’ve always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness. And though I have fallen short through human failings I’ve never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith.”
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.