Posted on 05/22/2014 7:38:39 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
That’s bad? Living like a saint?
Me likey weemens.
I’m a sinner.
I suck.
Dr. Edward Peters wrote a good article on that fact (that 6% of the world’s Catholics get 60% of the world’s annulments) some years ago. He mentioned, among other things, that Americans have telephones that work, and automobiles, and can drive to the chancery over roads that don’t have IED’s planted in them, etc.
If you consider intent alone, 50% doesn't sound unreasonable.
For a marriage to be valid, both the husband and wife must intend:
1) a lifetime commitment to each other --at a minimum, never to remarry.
2) openess to children. At a minimum, they must be open to the possibility of children at some time during their marriage.
How many nominal Catholics say to themselves at the time of their wedding, "if this doesn't work out, I can always get a divorce."
How many nominal Catholics never intend to have children?
Then add in all of the nominal Catholics who marry outside of the faith who could easily fall into these two categories.
In an abusive relationship, the Church permits civil divorce, but not remarriage, assuming that the original marriage was valid. A civil divorce is considered separation.
Additionally, an abusive personality could be indicative of a psychological condition that could make a marriage invalid. But that's just an educated guess.
Her post-marital actions indicated a mindset that almost certainly existed prior to the wedding, i.e., that she did not intend a lifetime commitment.
The idea of null marriages seems very reasonable to me. I don't know why so many people have such difficulty with it.
Your experience with the human race is different from mine.
Well, that would be an out.
pay the local bishop to declare them insane.
I’ll bet I can prove it too.
Surely there are some abuses. Who knows to what degree? But abuse doesn’t obviate the principle anymore than corrupt judges obviate the necessity of a criminal justice system.
“Your experience with the human race is different from mine.”
That’s a shame for you. At any rate, they hurt no one but themselves...
As for myself... I’ve been married to the same woman for more than 45 years. Under no conceivable circumstances would I get a divorce.
I was married in the Church. Do I have a valid Sacramental marriage? Almost certainly not.
I’m one of those outliers that believe that my word is my bond. Till death do us part really means that, and that has nothing to do with the Church, it has to do with me and the values I would like my kids to have...
“A husband or wife may have, not just the right, but the moral responsibility to separate from their spouse, esp.in cases of abuse. Even if the separation is accompanied by a civil divorce, no moral fault is incurred.”
I don’t think this is literally true. The standard vows state “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health from this day forward till death do us part”
So wouldn’t an abusive spouse fall under the “better or worse” clause? And to add to that, wouldn’t an abusive spouse fall under the “in sickness and in health” clause?
The spouse has NO grounds for with holding sex from a spouse...
If you enter into such a union believing that you do, you do not have a Sacramental marriage...
See posts 36 and 38.
And you will say: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
That’s crazy... And it is, But that’s what canon law dictates... You can’t pick and choose.
Would that not be the fault of the church teachers?
We need to distinguish between different things: physical separation, civil divorce, and divorce/remarriage. What a man or woman is promising, when they vow "for better, for worse, in sickness and in health" is essentially that they will uphold the marriage bond, i.e. remain sexually faithful, and not remarry while their husband or wife still lives: "til death do us part."
That does not forbid separations. Indeed very often spouses are separated, and for far lesser grounds than abuse. Military spouses know what it is to be separated for long periods of time because of deployment; chronically ill or seriously injured spouses often have to be hospitalized or put in a specialized care facility, and that entails separation as well. They are still faithful "in sickness and in health" -- the physical separation does not negate the marriage bond.
And we not infrequently read in the lives of the saints, that a devout married wife and husband, their children raised, agree to part and retire to a convent and a monastery respectively.
These are physical separations, sometimes lengthy and sometimes permanent, which do not break the original marriage bond. They do not involve adulterous remarriage.
As well, if one spouse is seriously abusive to the other, the physical presence of the victim in the same house as the abuser might constitute a grave near-occasion of sin to the abuser. Wives, for instance, have a serious obligation to NOT provide repeated occasions of sin for repeat-offender husbands.
Thus, separating to prevent injury to the victim, also prevents the multiplication of sins by the abuser. Thus separation is morally justified, not only for the physical protection of the one, but the spiritual protection of the other.
This is especially necessary where children are involved, Children must be protected both from being abused, and from witnessing abuse.
The spouse who flees abuse must still pray for the well-being and redemption of their marriage partner, and remain faithful in not seeking another partner. Thus the fleeing spouse still observes her vow.
"The spouse has NO grounds for with holding sex from a spouse...If you enter into such a union believing that you do, you do not have a Sacramental marriage..
You are quite mistaken. There can be a reasonable, serious, even obligatory reason to discontinue sexual relations.
Say the wife has recently experienced childbirth that involved a couple of episiotomy incisions. Intercourse could not only be very painful, it could rupture the sutures and cause hemorrhage. The husband shouldn't even ask for intercourse until healing has occurred. She has a right to refuse perineal injury.
Say a wife just survived childbirth complications like pulmonary hypertension with right heart failure. Another pregnancy could kill her. Both spouses then have a serious obligation not to risk pregnancy. If the husband wants intercourse, especially at a known-fertile time, she must refuse.
Say the husband is HIV+. Again, a morally serious reason not to have intercourse.
There are also legitimate reasons for civil divorce, a divorce which does NOT, for Catholics, entail a right to remarry. Civil divorce is sometimes necessary, as the Church recognizes, to "protect the rights of the weaker party," generally meaning to obtain enforceable support for spouse and children.
None of this justifies remarriage while the husband or wife is still living. And none of this justifies cessation of marital relations for unreasonable, non-serious reasons such as personal pique or preference.
Then lets leave it at that.
"Let's not be naive, we're not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God," wrote Cardinal Bergoglio in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires. "We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God." To the clergy of the parishes, Bergoglio requested that all of them read from the pulpits a declaration defending the true definition and understanding of marriage. "The Argentinean people will have to confront, in the coming weeks, a situation whose result could gravely injure the family. We are speaking of a bill regarding marriage between people of the same sex," a bill that calls into question "the identity, and the survival of the family: father, mother, and children."
“What a man or woman is promising, when they vow “for better, for worse, in sickness and in health” is essentially that they will uphold the marriage bond, i.e. remain sexually faithful, and not remarry while their husband or wife still lives: “til death do us part.” “
So you are just read into it anything you want I see, and that justifies it...
Ordinary reading of the words mean nothing? The wording is pretty straight forward. Remember, this is a contract. Words mean something... If it were to mean what you want them to mean, why not just say it that way in the first place.
If there are unspoken implications in the vows, then the whole contract is invalid unless there is a severability clause. Which there is not...
It’s funny actually. The only time I married (almost 46 years ago), the vows I took and the ones my spouse took were different. I promised to love, honer and cherish. She promised to love, honer and obey. Why is this relevant? Simply because she lied, and that poisons the sacramental part of the marriage.
Of course there was no malice on her part, she was just too immature to understand what she was saying and why it was important. But that kind of immaturity also poisons the sacrament as well.
However, we’ll celebrate our 46th in a few months.
No law --- criminal, civil or canon --- requires exposing yourself or your children to assault, or enabling an assailant.
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.