Posted on 08/04/2009 5:43:44 AM PDT by markomalley
No wonder Mel Gibson is giving the thumbs-up. Full time has been called on his 28-year marriage to Robyn Moore. The Pope didn't give the order, though. That edict came from Mel's 90-year-old father Hutton Gibson, and it paves the way for his son to marry his pregnant Russian girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva by Christmas.
Having had his request turned down by Catholic bishops, Mel, 53, pleaded his case in front of a tribunal of members from the Church of the Holy Family, his breakaway Catholic church in Malibu.
Hutton, who once studied for the priesthood only to leave before he was ordained, presided over the hearing. He granted Mel's annulment request after his son presented evidence that his union to Robyn, 53, was never a true marriage — even though they wed in a Catholic ceremony in Australia in June 1980.
"Especially important was Mel's description of how he felt pressured into the marriage in the first place because Robyn was pregnant," a family insider says.
"Those feelings indicated to Hutton that it couldn't have been a true marriage, and so he felt it must be invalid.
"After the discussion ended, Hutton pounded his fist on the table and said, ‘It is true that this union did not have what it takes to be a true marriage.'"
The family are at pains to keep the annulment, which took place a month after Robyn filed for divorce in April, a secret — but maybe not too secret.
"Mel hopes some of the bishops he has befriended recently can be persuaded to give him a proper Catholic annulment," the insider says.
Either way, Mel is forging ahead with plans for a Christmas wedding to Oksana, 39, despite her cold feet over his recent behaviour, which includes gambling escapades in Las Vegas.
Obviously, if one continues over and over to join his flesh with the woman to whom he is legally married, then he is, by his own behavior, validating the marriage. It's not as if he did an "oopsie" one time. So yes, having 7 children with the woman to whom you are legally married makes quite a bit of difference.
One is not legally married in the Catholic church unless the criteria of complete freedom in doing so, and the intent of procreation, has been satisfied when vows are made. Civil legality does nothing to validate vows. Since most Protestant denominations see divorce as acceptable, this conversation is already two-strikes in the hole.
As though your hearsay could possibly qualify you to make that judgement!
The church rejects the idea that a marriage between baptized persons can be "dissolved," so you aren't going to hear of those at all.
The only question is whether a marriage ever existed at all.
There are plenty of cases where someone attempted remarriage after a civil divorce. If their first marriage was valid, their second marriage cannot possibly be valid if their (original) spouse is still alive.
Declaring the second (attempted) marriage invalid is perfectly Biblical; in fact, Christ's explicit words, related in three different gospels, require it.
Like a good fundamentalist, you believe that a “shotgun” wedding must include, somewhere, a shotgun.
What’s unbiblical about “let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no”? How about “Thou shalt not lie” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? Is that biblical enough?
You wrote:
“Clearly, the scriptures indicate that one party expresses to the other party that they are marrying them, and then they join and become one flesh.”
Does that consent have to be voluntary? Christians say yes. What say you?
“That is marriage in the biblical sense. There are no caveats about “Well, I didn’t really want to marry her.” You did it, now you’re married.”
No. Marriage against your will is not valid. Consent must be freely given. You may not realize this, but you are saying forced marriage is just honky-dorry.
“Show me a biblical precedent for the claims you are trying to make. Just one example of God allowing the dissolution of a marriage because the guy felt “pressured” to marry because he was about to be a father. (Or for any other similar silly reason.)”
Not all truths are contained in scripture nor should anyone expect them to be. The making of a marriage must be voluntary.
“I won’t hold my breath, because there simply is no such biblical precedent.”
Freedom most certainly is a Biblical precedent. Without free consent, there is no valid marriage.
I believe it goes like this: "What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."
The key word here is "God" - obviously. Now. We're running into a semantical problem because your are saying that marriage is indissoluble. It is. There's no record of marriage dissolvement in the Bible because a marriage cannot be dissolved. However, according to Scripture, marriage is attended to and blessed by God.
That in mind, I would like you to explain where it states in the Bible that God will bless a lie, a falsehood, a sham ceremony that purports to be a marriage, but is based in deceit, ignorance, or duress (not custom, but duress). If you believe that God joins together and blesses those who are acting out a grand lie in a masquerade of sanctity, then your point is well taken. If you don't believe that He would do this - that He can't be fooled, and won't be made a mockery of - then how can you not believe that "marriages" based in defect are not really marriages, and therefore did not exist in the first place? Either God joins together or He does not. Either He blesses and joins a lie, or He does not. Take your pick.
The grounds for granting annulments you have been citing have been around for a long time and no one disputes they invalidate a marriage.
The most recent increase in annulments are frequently based as you indicated on "Psychological immaturity" and herein is where the problem lies. This was a well intentioned attempt to approach a serious problem but in practice it causes more problems than it solves. Thus there has been a backlash from Rome against the US where the vast majority of "Psychological immaturity" cases originate. The same set of circumstances can result in an annulment in one diocese and a refusal in another. Thus which is it - is such a marriage valid or not valid. If it depends on the decision of the local tribunal (which may or may not be influenced by money or personalities) then it is by tribunal decision not the words of Christ.
Why not be more honest, which the Church has the right to be, and simply declare that a once valid marriage is now dead and grant a divorce (like the Greeks do). The call is for honesty, not anything other than simple pastoral honesty.
You wrote:
“Yes. Do you have any real life example of someone who involuntarily was forced into marriage (i.e. by having a gun held to their head).”
Yes. I know of a case, resolved in California in which those were excatly the circumstances. The “marriage” took place in Mexico. The woman believed that she was genuinely married even though she had a gun to her head (her back actually if I remember correctly) and only years later was she disabused of that belief after fleeing to the US and talking to a canon lawyer. I got this straight from the canon lawyer and he would never lie to me and said the woman was clearly not lying to him because she really thought she had been married even though it was against her will and without her free consent.
“Again, provide one real example of where this has occurred.”
Done.
“Of course. But anyone who claims a ‘truth’ that contradicts what God has said in scripture is not telling the truth.”
Nothing I said has HAS EVER contradicted scripture. Your interpretation is your own. I can contradict that all day long and not contradict scripture once.
Spouse A says to Spouse B, “I plan on having children with you”. After marrying, Spouse A says to Spouse B, “I will only have sex with you as long as we use contraception.”
FAIL.
Regardless of your reasoning, a valid marriage never dies. The marriage only dissolves at the death of a spouse.
Honesty dictates that a marriage that didn’t exist in the first place is no marriage at all, i.e., null and void.
Of course they can. Imagine a family in which the parentage demands that their resistant son/daughter marry into Family B or be disowned from their inheritance and contact with other family members. The proceeding marriage is not valid, REGARDLESS of anything that occurs afterward - children, prosperity, etc.
He opened the door wide for them. For him to make public that Robyn was pregnant and he felt pressured to marry her -- just so he could scrape up an annulment -- is so low and filthy it's almost beyond belief.
This line from the Bible comes to mind: "God is not mocked."
"......and lead us not into temptation." - Jesus Christ.
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.